Falcon 9 Reaction

While watching the live video feed of the launch, I was sickened by the contingent of Constellation huggers in the side bar chat who continually wished for a failure today.

Now go out and get a real job, you slackers!

I can't help but notice that after Ares 1-X and Pad Abort 1 there was nothing but silence from the NASA administrator. Falcon 9 launches and within minutes a prepared response has been circulated on the internet.

Way to motivate your team, Charlie.

Gonzo:

It would be nice if we could do IP traces on those Constellation huggers so that we can make sure they never get a job at Spacex when they go begging.

tinker

That is his team. Ares is going no where.

Ares 1-x was interesting but did little to move the project forward and consumed a huge amount of resources, both people and money. Pad Abort 1 was a very sweet demonstration and I've heard rumors that that team will help develop the abort system for the man-rated SpaceX Dragon capsule. Anybody know more about that?

The success of Falcon 9 is simply that, a great test flight of a very promising new space vehicle. It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that this successful flight detracts in any way from other NASA or commercial space flight efforts.

Actually NASA is his team. And those folks in Ares are just doing what they're told, and doing a fantastic job at it. The least he could have done is a "Good job" e-mail for the major Ares milestones. But Lori probably didn't write that message for him so it didn't get sent out.

I don't think you could find a statement more filed with minimizing innuendo that this...

This first successful test flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is a belated sign that efforts to develop modest commercial space cargo capabilities are showing some promising signs.

Talk about missing the boat. Her comments about Falcon 9 being a whole year behind schedule is really laughable since she seems to think it's fine that Arex 1 is more than five years behind schedule (with no hope in sight either).

Politician = idiot.

Sen Hutchinson calls the the Falcon 9 launch a "modest success is more than a year behind schedule".

But according to wikipedia, Ares-I wouldn't be ready to send up crew to ISS before 2017 at the earliest, and would cost $40B to develop, and $1B per flight.

I don't know what SpaceX spent on the Falcon 9, but it cost the government only $280M. And SpaceX says COTS flights will cost $110M each. (Although this cost might not include the KSC infrastructure costs, this total will still be less than $1B).

And Falcon 9 is clearly much further along than Ares-I, and will likely be able to get crew up to the ISS before Ares-I ever could... At about 1/10th of the cost per launch and about 1/100th of the development cost to taxpayers.

Oh yeah, and there is also Orbital and ULA who can both probably figure out a way to get crew to the ISS sooner and cheaper than Ares-I.

nstrange: "And SpaceX says COTS flights will cost $110M each."

I assume that you are quoting the cost of a Falcon 9 configured for a cargo payload - right? How much are they quoting for the "man rated" version along with all the additional support that is required when you have seven souls on board?

Before we quantify our savings over Soyuz - the only other "seat for sale" operation around - let us remember that the fifty-some-odd million buys a bunch more than a ride to the pad and a seat on the vehicle. It includes the better part of a year's worth of some pretty intensive training, and all of the support services which go with the ride such as search and rescue teams.

I keep hearing that SpaceX designed the Falcon 9 from the ground up to be easily man-rated - I wonder how much effort it is really going to take and if they will be expected to live up to the same rules and criteria as our existing spacecraft.

All that aside - well done SpaceX - you have takes the first steps towards your goal.

Yes Keith,NASA has spent 30 times on Constellation,so far, what it will spend on COTS-C.300million X 30 = 9billion.Can anyone believe that SpaceX has only spent 345 million and developed 2 rockets? The Shuttle people want another flight a year from now.What? Pay people 250 million a month to set around? How much per person would that be? Just pay them unemployment like everyone else and put the Shuttles in museums.They say F9,Dragon has got to prove itself before retiring the Shuttles.It has.NASA said they had to know this month.They now know.

Shelby is a fool

It is no wonder JPL no longer does much work with MSFC

JPL and the U.S. Army's Ballistic Missile Agency in Huntsville, Alabama, then pooled resources and knowledge. In about 80 days a four-stage rocket was assembled. JPL's canister-shaped Explorer 1 satellite formed the nose of the rocket.

On January 31, 1958, Explorer 1 launched and became the first U.S. satellite, using its single instrument to send back data about the radiation environment high above Earth's surface.

This started the "space race" with the Soviet Union.

"This first successful test flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is a belated sign that efforts to develop modest commercial space cargo capabilities are showing some promising signs."

Hutchison and her staff should be routed for such incompetence. A belated sign of promising signs? Graduate high school yet?

@chrish

The $1B estimate per Ares-I launch doesn't include the operations costs for manned spaceflight, so an apples-to-apples comparison with Falcon 9 shouldn't include those costs either.

The $110M cost is for Cargo to ISS within NASA's rules. I don't think the launch vehicle costs when you add people would be much more... However, the ops costs would be much more, but those are bookept separately.

However, even if you doubled, tripled, or quadrupled the $110M per launch figure it's still a bargain compared to Ares-I or the Shuttle.

Such a pathetic, bitter statement from Sen. Hutchison. I'm pretty jaded when it comes to Congress but this exceeds disgusting even for that group. Does she really want to talk about "delays" for a company that went from NOT EVEN EXISTING to inserting a payload on a rocket with newly developed in-house liquid engines into a PERFECT orbit in just 8 years, while in the same breath defending two programs that have not only had their share of much longer delays but also consume SpaceX's total development effort worth of $ in a single month ? WOW.
And speaking of "delays"---I believe Ares I-X was not only put together from EXISTING and dummy hardware but wasn't it SIX MONTHS behind schedule (manifested for April 2009, launched in Oct 2009) eventhough it was given a virtually unlimited budget ? Senator Pot, please meet my friend Mr. Kettle......

sroman: "They say F9,Dragon has got to prove itself before retiring the Shuttles.It has."

You know sroman - Falcon 9 did incredibly well today - the whole team can be justifiably proud - however, it is still a ways from proving itself as a robust system which can reliably launch cargo to the ISS.

we both know it is going to a bit more work before NASA or our IPs are convinced that the Dragon is stable enough for proximity ops with a manned vehicle, especially one that can't "get out of the way" if necessary like the ISS.

And that's just cargo - we have not even seen Dragon hardware to support a live crew yet.

In any case - the task of the Dragon and the Shuttle are not even close to being the same missions - they don't really compete for thee the shuttle's forte was hauling large objects to orbit. Dragon on the other hand is designed to carry day-to-day consumables - laptops and grapefruit of you will.

And because of their short loiter time and the absence or a lifeboat such as the X38 or Orion Lite neither vehicle is suited for crew rotation.

nstrange - I think that you need to check your numbers. I Googled around a bit and found a variety of figures purporting be the cost per pound for shuttle to LEO - not an easy task because no one seems to calculate it the same way.

Do you just include the incremental costs per mission - washing out all the support infrustructue - if so then you end up with something like $7000 per pound to LEO

Or do you simply divide the total shuttle budget by the number of missions - thereby including the MCC, training, OPSs the VAB, th e pads and LCC - you name it - if you go that route then about 18K per pound LEO seems to fit.

Less if you fly more in a given year per mission.

I kind of liked wikipedia's number of $10,400 - seems to be the best fit whe you don't include operations costs (which is what you based your statement on)

The problem comes in when you realize that with the Dragon you get EITHER 10,400 kg of payload to LEO - or you get 7 crew members to LEO - but not both.

On the other hand - with the shuttle, you get 24,400 kg to LEO and your crew members.

So to get the same payload, plus crew up to the ISS you would need 3 Falcon 9 lunches.

So much for your doubling or tripling costs.

And that does not take into account the flexibility or the down mass shuttle provides.

Bottom line - I think that you were shooting from the hip and that your numbers are wrong.

Pardon me - my previous comment was meant for nstrange not sroman.

The statements from Hutchison and Shelby were very predictable -- these two would say the moon is made of green cheese if that saw some political advantage.

The more consequential statement was from Nelson (which you didn't mention Keith): ...that the successful test suggests that the vehicle will be in "full operation delivering cargo to the International Space Station a year from now."

I very much agree -- this successful Falson-9 launch is a stake through the heart of Constellation and Ares.

Falcon 9 has a better chance of closing the gap than Ares 1 will. Apparently the good senator (her staff that is) are utterly unaware of the fact that Ares 1 will not achieve any of its milestones until after Falcon 9 has already done so.

Meh. If we're talking gap closure and launch vehicles only (not considering capsules), my money's on the Delta IV. It already has an operational history (unlike either Ares or Falcon 9), and the Air Force won't let it die, so it's not as vulnerable to market forces as SpaceX is.

As someone who leans to the right side of the isle I cannot express how deeply "troubling" Shelby and KBH statement's are. Isn't the republican party for privatization? Doesn't the party believe in less government?

SpaceX is everything that we believe in. Private, small business out muscling the big guy, and you two sound like someone just stole your lunch money on the playground before school started.

You two "Senators" aught to be ashamed of yourselves.

Hey Richard, Hey Kay, how about send an extra 500 million of JSC and MSFC's money to Hawthorne, CA so we can get ourselves a HLV, I mean BFR, within five years?

VR
RS327

Go to spacex.com and check the specs. and line drawing for Dragon.7 crew rotation will never happen.We generally rotate 2 as the next Soyuz mission will do.Some times only one.2 women US crew this time on ISS.Is that a first?The 7 person is either to give joyrides or as a lifeboat.Dragon can stay docked for a year.Longer than Soyuz.It has solar cells not fuel cells.It could be made to loiter a really long time if you want for cargo.Scrubbers,liquid ox or even candles could extend human needs.There is a Dragon lab and they say it can be crew tended.So it has got to loiter for awhile.A standard person is 200lbs.x 7=1400 lbs.Dragon can carry 2000lbs inside,so no problem.It can carry 12,000lbs externally.Mr. Gerstermeir has said it can carry any of the ORUs.11'x11'x11' is about the size of the cargo bay.That is standard.The specs says there is a stretched version also.Since it is a tube and is made and discarded each mission,any length needed,if stable,can be made.So yes it can't carry the weight as Shuttle,but it can carry the volume.Solar wing boxes are large,but lite.ISS has 5 cargo carriers(if you include Soyuz).So Shuttle capacity is not needed.In fact Shuttle did not have to be used to build ISS.The first module was put up by Proton.Expendables could have been used to build the whole thing.The diameter of the modules uplifted by Shuttle was limited by the diameter of the Shuttle cargo bay.A fairing launch can be much larger such as the JWST.Sen. the commercial craft was always suppose to take cargo and crew to ISS.Orion was only suppose to visit once or twice.No cargo,just crew.It has no cargo bay.It had a large rocket motor to get it to the Moon and back instead.Check COTS,b,c,d.Dragon will very slowly approach ISS.If any problems arise,they will back off.This is the approach that all visiting vehicles use.It should be as stable as any of the others.The control system for Dragon has already been installed and checked out.Cygnus will use the Japanese system.

Folks:

It seem like some American politicians have truly lost sight of what being American is all about. Clearly Senator Hutchison is miss-informed or is more interested in political drama than reality. We know which about Shelby.

And hey, it's not just some politicians either. I mean, when did Americans as a people loose confidence in themselves and their nation? It's sad to see Spacex getting the shaft when it could be so played up as being everything that (used to) make America great. Like: Immigrant comes to America to find dream (so what if he had lots of money), Small company from out of nowhere, changes paradigm on shoe string budget in a few short years, America embraces the spirit of Henry Ford, claims the high ground in commercial space flight...

I'd hate to think that the last great American rocket scientist was Robert Goddard. Sergey Korolyov and Wernher von Braun are the great rocket designers we remember from the twentieth century. Elon Musk ain't American either. Jealous?

What is it going to take to get Americans off their sorry butts and on the road to greatness again? If it takes shaming folks out of their stupor and onto the path of pride again... so be it!

(Sorry Keith, but if I could use a stun gun to get people out of their chairs and start working for Americas future , I would. But this is all I have.)

tinker

@ chrish

Operations costs are usually not included in LV costs, but infrastructure costs usually are... and these infrastructure costs can be over half of the price if the launch rate is low. The $110M cost for a Falcon 9 includes the infrastructure costs at the cape, but not the operations costs for a given mission. Usually the launch customer pays the operations costs... and in the case of manned spaceflight, operations costs are budgeted separately from launch costs.

I googled: "cost per shuttle launch" and got a $450M per launch incremental and $1.5B per launch average if you include infrastructure costs (which is what the $110M for Falcon 9 number does, the incremental cost for Falcon 9 is something like $40M). So as far as getting 7 crew up, Falcon 9 is much cheaper.

If you want to talk cost per kg of cargo, the Shuttle should be compared to an Atlas V or the proposed Falcon 9 Heavy which would be in the same heavy lift family. I don't know if cost data for either of those two have been published, but I'm sure that the launch cost including infrastructure is much, much less than shuttle.

Folks:

Hmmmmm....

Senator Richard Shelby:

"Belated progress for one so-called commercial provider must not be confused with progress for our nation's human spaceflight program. As a nation, we cannot place our future spaceflight on one fledgling company's definition of success."

• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, set a new standard for faint praise:

"This first successful test flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is a belated sign that efforts to develop modest commercial space cargo capabilities are showing some promising signs. While this test flight was important, the program to demonstrate commercial cargo and crew transport capabilities, which I support, was intended to enhance not replace NASA's own proven abilities to deliver critical cargo and humans to low Earth orbit. Make no mistake, even this modest success is more than a year behind schedule, and the project deadlines of other private space companies continue to slip as well. This test does not change the fact that commercial space programs are not ready to close the gap in human spaceflight if the space shuttle is retired this year with no proven replacement capability and the Constellation program is simultaneously canceled as the president proposes."

tinker

At last we get to the root of the problem - misguided politicians trying to turn NASA into a jobs program toy for their districts instead of focusing on meeting the exploration challenges of the day. Hutchinson and Shelby no longer have a leg to stand on given that the direction proposed by the Obama Administration has been partially vindicated by Space X's successful launch of the Falcon 9. The fact is the Ares program has not yet achieved a comparable milestone to that of the Falcon 9 flight despite billions of dollars of investment and is not scheduled to do so for at least 2 years even with the most optimistic of predictions. The Ares I-X flight, while successful, did not demonstrate 2nd stage flight performance and capability, a critical part of the Ares I mission. If Hutchinson and Shelby were sincerely interested in the success of the Constellation program, they should have been similarly vocal when the Constellation program was being consistently underfunded under the previous administration.
There is still a ways to go before Space X achieves manned flight capability. However I'm very encouraged by this launch and my hope is that Congress gets its act together and moves forward to allow NASA to shut down Constellation and expedite work on critical HLV capability and other exploration goals. In truth, every delay to work on HLV (including those induced by Ares I's fumbled development) delays America's progress and hinders its dominance in space exploration.
With regards to Bolden's silence on the Ares I-X launch, to be frank, there wasn't much to boast about with respect to that launch. What exciting new capability did it truly demonstrate? Even some NASA folks I know resorted to calling it what it really was, a "stunt" flight, as the engineering justifications for the expense of that flight were rather thin on substance.

Folks:

And further more... Spacex has their rocket motor test site in Senator Hutchinsons state. Elon Musk created jobs from nowhere, brought an abandoned facility back online and as business grow... so will those jobs. She is basically saying "to protect more constituents over here, I'll just slam a few constituents over here"! It don't seem right (or American) to me. Oh, and don't try to send her a nice email either unless you want to jump through flaming hoops to do it.

tinker

What our elected public officials should be asking is this: why should the taxpayer fund development of a new booster and capsule system for tens of billions of dollars when a private firm has just launched such a vehicle for a fraction of the expense.

Funny - I lean to the left side of the proverbial aisle and I was thinking the EXACT SAME THING!

I thought we were supposed to get the gubmint out of the way.

You are right, Shelby and Hutchinson are hypocrites.

Finally! something both sides can agree on!

Some corrections for Chris:
a) Dragon has the same docking port that shuttle uses to mate with ISS, so it is entirely capable of shipping refrigerator sized equipment to ISS just like Shuttle. No it won't be hauling modules up there, but ISS construction is finished so thats a false standard to hold it to.
b) Dragon is designed from the start to handle both cargo and humans. The only part that isn't developed yet to be man rated is the launch escape system, which is unneeded for cargo missions.
c) Dragon is not a short duration capsule, it is built to stay in space 270 days and is designed to be capable of serving as a station rescue vehicle.

Hutchinson's response was simply disgusting in attacking an American company on its day of success, and even worse that SpaceX is a Texas company, they do all their engine development and testing there, and they are one of the fastest growing employers in the state. Great way to treat your constitutents, Kay!!! Good luck getting their votes!

Shelby as well, should be ashamed. The degree to which alleged conservative republicans are acting so anti-free-enterprise exposes them as frauds who should be run out of office (and about as amusing as seeing Democrats act so Pro-free-enterprise, I just wish they'd apply the same standard to health care).

A correction for MLorry - we were both wrong about the Dragon's design mission duration - the vehicle spec sheet, available on the SpaceX website lists mission duration from 1 week to 2 years.

The launch abort system, I have not heard much about what SpaceX intends to do - is there a chance NASA can make a "gift" of the Orion LAS - with adaptations for the size and shape of the vehicle?

I mean why not, NASA already has a lot of skin in this game - if you look at the Space Act agreement between NASA and SpaceX you will see that for the Falcon 9 cargo stuff, SpaceX gets about 283 million across milestones (capabilities A through C)

If Capability D - Crewed Demo - is added they get an additional 308 million across 17 milestones.

This is in addition to a metric truckload of tax breaks from the feds and Florida - some of which can be sold - and there was a chunk of Recovery Act money spent on the repair / upgrade of the infrastructure at their KSC launch complex.

This is just for the development and demo work - not the paid flights. And does not include the value of the mentoring provided - wanna go there?

In any case,they did good. Real good. But it is not as much a "pure commercial" effort as it is portrayed to the public.

MLorry - you are correct, the primary construction phase of the ISS is done so no more large modules are expected at this point. And yes, the Dragon uses the same docking collar as the shuttle so you can put an express rack up there on the Dragon.

But what happens if you need a major "external" part delivered - such as another SARJ?

You are dependent on the Dragon for rendezvous and grapple and I don't think I don't think something of that size is going to fit in the trunk.

Has anyone looked at some sort of "tug" that can pick up a large object from a basic orbit and deliver it to the ISS?

Editor's note: actually Dragon uses a CBM (not the shuttle docking interface) and is berthed to the ISS just like a MPLM is at the end of the SSRMS.

FYI I believe this Dragon demo vehicle just launched will only be in orbit for a few weeks before it re-enters uncontrolled.

Editor's note: actually it will be in orbit for a number of months.

"Editor's note: actually it will be in orbit for a number of months."

According to Ted Molczan, if I understood an email from him, on June 5 the predicted re-entry of the upper stage is on June 22 and the Dragon capsule on June 17.

Editor's note: my source is SpaceX.

whyisthat1:

Since the upper stage and Dragon capsule didn't (and where not meant to) separate, I'd say your source is whoafully misinformed. Spacex picked this orbit because it was high enough that no one could split hairs but low enough to decay in "a reasonable amount of time". Spacex does not want to contribute to the amount of space junk up there. (source: Spacex)

tinker

"Editor's note: my source is SpaceX."

My source is based on actual tracking data for object 36595. Does SpaceX agree that NORAD catalog number applies to their spacecraft? If not, what is the catalog number of it?

If the upper stage can raise its orbit, then it could be months, but I haven't heard that it has that capability.

Actually, it looks like I misspoke and the two dates are based on different tracking data. It appears that the Dragon is still attached to its upper stage. So the predicted re-entry is around June 17 to June 20. Its in a 90 minute orbit which is fairly low. If the upper stage is still connected then the drag would be high. I guess we'll see in a couple of weeks.

Editor's note: then go tell SpaceX that they are wrong.

Folks:

From Norad:

NORAD Catalog Number: 36595. International Designator (COSPAR ID): 2010-026A Perigee Height: 242.0 km. Apogee Height: 270.5 km. Orbit Period: 89.6 min.

No time frame on these data but seems like Falcon/Dragon will be up there for a while. The Apogee on the orbit might have to do with Spacex "burping" the upper stage. I wonder if they use the gas generator as an ullage motor.

tinker