We don’t know if they’ve successfully achieved orbit, but they were well on their way when we lost contact, and this was a pretty successful first flight even if something goes wrong at the end. It won’t quiet the people whining about “hobbyists,” and “toy rockets,” but they were always idiots.
It was particularly impressive that they had a successful launch within two hours of an ignition abort. I don’t think anyone else in the business can recycle that fast.
I’m hearing that they had a minor roll problem with the second stage. That actually reassures me — the flight was looking too good for a first flight. It’s nice to catch something to fix — that’s what test flights are for. And it seems to be robust, because the guidance system seems to have gotten them to the designated orbit even with the problem.
[Update a few minutes later]
The SpaceFlightNow webcast is showing Bolden saying something, but I don’t have audio.
[Update at 12:30 Pacific]
The Youtubes are going up.
And my email to Gwynne and her reply:
Hundreds and Thank you!
—–Original Message—–
From: Rand Simberg
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 8:55 AM
To: Gwynne Shotwell
Subject: CongratulationsYou’ll be getting a lot of emails like this, I’ll bet.
It’s a new world. And many more.
It will be very interesting to see how this affects the debate, if at all.
[Update mid afternoon]
Apparently the chutes didn’t open on the first stage. I don’t know if that means it will be unrecoverable, but it won’t be in good shape. “Debris field” doesn’t sound good. One more thing to wring the bugs out of.
[Update a few minutes later]
First-stage chute deployment is one of the things that they didn’t test, I think. At least until today. I suspect they just decided that the cheapest way to test it would be on the first flight, instead of spending extra money on a drop test, which wouldn’t be practical from the separation altitude anyway. It’s just a cost issue, and not mission critical. They’ll have plenty of flights to sort it out.
DensityDuck: “fewer jobs for rocket scientists.”
You’re thinking about it backwards.
One tenth the cost could mean the difference between a small, expensive industry with an unclear future (NASA) vs. a large, inexpensive industry with sustainable demand as far as the eye can see.
Which industry do you think will employ more rocket scientists?
Paul, thanks. With your explanation in mind, I reviewed the launch, and now I can see that at least some of the debris is coming off ahead of the nozzles.
JSFDenver, the SpaceX.com website has an entertaining video tour of the launch site here:
http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=34 where Musk explains that the four towers are lightning masts “able to protect us against Armageddon”.
It stands to reason that a vibrant private space launch industry would ultimately see to the expansion of the number of people in rocket scientist positions. Instead of a large group of engineers toiling away on the same design for 15 years why not spread them out and have them turning out a design in 5 years? It seems to me the way they have been doing things is that most of the engineers are just verifying the work that another engineer has already done and signing his name to a stack of papers taller than the launch vehicle itself. We absolutely need all the rocket scientists we can get; we just need them involved in more productive work.
Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, whose state of Alabama is also a NASA stronghold, further decried the launch as a display merely replicating what “NASA accomplished in 1964.”
“Belated progress for one so-called commercial provider must not be confused with progress for our nation’s human space flight program,” Shelby said. “As a nation, we cannot place our future space flight on one fledgling company’s definition of success.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38145.html#ixzz0pvwttkE3
Does anybody know whether Falcon 9/Dragon will be in an orbit that makes visible passes overhead from North America?
I checked heavens-above.com but they don’t have a listing for it.
If it accepts NORAD IDs, here it is: 36595
You’re thinking about it backwards.
That’s how “Density Duck” generally thinks. He lives up to his screen name.
The Falcon has wings!
Shiny!
Now watch, how in true Rand-ian fashion, Obama will “compromise” with Shelby and somehow hamstring SpaceX in a way that will render today’s heroic success moot.
That was Ayn Rand-ian up there!
I have too words: Woo! Hoo!
Just got back from my date. I had to leave work and go to the Doc this evening and then on a date so I just found out. Had to leave work just after the first abort. Bummer about the 1st stage but I am sure you will figure it out.
If you are reading this Elon Musk, all I can say is you da man!
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!
@txhsdad:
If you live in Florida, Louisiana or Texas, sure, it’ll have visible passes.
Re Pathetic Earthling:
For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;
The Dream is yet alive. Maybe the lingua franca of the quadrillions living in the Solar System of 2300 will not be Mandarin.
(Sorry about the bolding. I did a cut-and-paste job; can’t think how the bold codes got in.)
And–let me just get this straight, here, let me just make sure I understand you–you’re saying that it’s better if there are fewer jobs for rocket scientists. I mean, is that really what you’re trying to tell us here? Really?
I do know one thing. If we needed less rocket scientists to make a measly capsule like Orion, the remaining rocket scientists could be put to other uses. Perhaps a future reusable space launcher. Or into manned lunar exploration vehicles. Or space tugs. Or whatever.
Instead we get an expensive capsule, namely Orion, that is too big and late for servicing ISS, meant to go to the Moon, when there isn’t any budget left to develop the necessary lunar exploration vehicles. Let alone build and launch them. So you get a capsule that when developed, won’t have any place to go to. That is a program without a future.
If the Shelbys and Nelsons in this world would get a clue, they would support a smaller Orion lite vehicle that could launch in a regular EELV and shift some of the money from Ares development into actually building lunar exploration vehicles, fuel depots, advanced propulsion, or something other that will actually change the economics or way we do space exploration. Instead of doing what Von Braun planned with the disposable giant Saturn V and Nova rockets of the 1960s. It is time for the exploration vision to be upgraded.
Instead of doing what Von Braun planned with the disposable giant Saturn V and Nova rockets of the 1960s.
Von Braun wanted RLVs and depots, but he only got funding to win a race with the Soviets, not to make mankind spacefaring. And sadly the legacy of that race is the biggest obstacle to becoming a spacefaring society.
People like Zubrin sometimes complain that we could go to the moon in a decade from a standing start in the sixties because there was focus and a sense of urgency. The implication is that it should be even easier starting from where we are today, provided we can get the urgency and the focus back (which we probably can’t, but that’s another matter).
I think Zubrin makes a mistake by believing not starting from a standing start is an advantage. Back in the sixties there wasn’t a giant space industrial complex that opposed change and prevented progress. It’s so damn hard to get rid of a government bureaucracy with a budget once it’s established.
I think Zubrin makes a mistake by believing not starting from a standing start is an advantage.
SpaceX could be said to have started from a standing start, supporting your argument.
People too easily get stuck in a rut. The dragon escape system is what happens when you don’t.
And–let me just get this straight, here, let me just make sure I understand you–you’re saying that it’s better if there are fewer jobs for rocket scientists. I mean, is that really what you’re trying to tell us here? Really?
No analogy is perfect but here’s one to ponder. Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, not even close. However, he did introduce mass production for cars making them affordable. Before that, automobiles were largely the playthings of the rich and of tinkerers.
Which model do you think ended up employing more people, the very expensive playthings of the rich by Mercedes and others or the cheap cars like the Ford Model T?
Lowering the cost of space access has the potential for greatly increasing the demand for “rocket scientists” (engineers). The NASA model of hyper expensive “cost-plus” contracts (and the same thing for the US military) is not opening space for commerce other than communications satellites.