SpaceX Announces Dragon As First Falcon 9 Payload 83
BJ_Covert_Action writes "SpaceX announced recently that it would be integrating a stripped-down test version of its own Dragon cargo capsule as the payload for its first Falcon 9 test launch. The Falcon 9 rocket is currently scheduled to launch on November 29 of this year if everything goes according to plan. However, Elon Musk admits that launch day will likely slip to sometime early next year. The Falcon 9 is the heavy launch vehicle designed by SpaceX to be used as a cheap, commercial alternative to existing United States launch platforms. Having launched a few successful light missions with the Falcon 1 rocket, SpaceX is going to launch the Falcon 9 as its next milestone in commercializing the space industry. Utilizing its own cargo capsule as the first Falcon 9 payload will effectively give SpaceX double the tests for one launch slot on the Cape Canaveral range. The capsule that will be used is a test version of the full Dragon capsule that encompasses primarily the structure and a few components of the full version. It served originally as a ground test platform for the Dragon design team and now will double as an orbital testbed. If nothing else, the announcement upped the ante in the commercial space market by showing the SpaceX is capable and willing to push the envelope on its development schedules. It should serve as a proper motivator for other commercial competitors such as Orbital Sciences with their Cygnus capsule, which is also under development."
Re: (Score:1)
Space station supply (Score:5, Informative)
This makes sense. Falcon 9 is uninsurable without a successful launch, so it cannot be used to launch a valuable satellite payload. Furthermore, NASA's space station supply contract is potentially far more lucrative than participating in the competitive market for satellite launch services. Good luck to them. They are going to need it
Re:Space station supply (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are they going to need good luck? You sound a little pessimistic about their efforts.
The first launch of any new rocket is likely to run into unforseen problems which can cause it to fail, particularly when it's been developed quickly on a low budget. SpaceX have some experience now with the earlier Falcon launches, but the odds of a failure are significant... that's just rocket science for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe wish them "no bad luck"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, getting into space despite the problems and then fixing them for the next launch is better than not getting into space at all; but, yes, the important element of the first launch of any rocket is to find the problems and fix them.
NASA, for example, had numerous problems on the early Saturn launches which could have lost the launcher and payload (POGO being the most obvious), but redundancy and some good luck saved those flights.
Re: (Score:1)
But I don't think it's that great if their rocket succeeds because of good luck. Maybe wish them "no bad luck" ;).
Amounts to the same thing. Bad luck can strike anyone, no matter how skilled, so it's good luck to not be struck by bad luck. The rest of your success is due to your own merits and work, but there's still the good luck of avoiding the bad beyond your control.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is irrelevant, it's actually fairly unusual for a booster (even in it's test phase) to not carry a commercial or government payload. This sounds more like, after the debacle the Falcon I has been to date, nobody is willing to risk their payload even for the reduced prices (sometimes even free) that such launches usually charge. This seems especially true given a) the lat
Re: (Score:2)
I admit I haven't kept up with SpaceX completely, but how has Falcon 1 been a debacle? Haven't they had at least two successful launches shortly after completing the rocket design, and running a few tests?
It seems somewhat of an overstatement to say the Falcon 1 was a debacle because they had problems during testing. Tests which were designed to find...well...problems.
Re: (Score:2)
There were payloads on some of the earlier Falcon 1 flights that ended up being a sort of embarrassment to SpaceX when the vehicles failed to reach orbit. Most of these payloads were flights to customers who could not have been able to afford a conventional launch, so it was mostly a free ride for what might have been successful but no guarantee on its success. A couple of satellites designed by the U.S. Air Force Academy cadets were on those flights. It was furthermore unfortunate that when the test fli
A payload would require the fairing, too... (Score:1)
This sounds more like, after the debacle the Falcon I has been to date, nobody is willing to risk their payload even for the reduced prices (sometimes even free) that such launches usually charge.
Actually, the situation is that there are two complementary reasons in play. By using the static test Dragon capsule, they get valuable engineering data about the dynamics of the integrated system that they can use to make any adjustments in advance of the first Dragon COTS launch.
The other factor influencing the decision is that the Falcon 9/Dragon configuration does not use the payload fairing. By using the static test Dragon capsule for the Falcon 9 demo launch, they can extend development of the paylo
Re: (Score:2)
If a fairing posed particularly difficult design and development problem - you'd have a point.
And what do you know, I *do* have a point. (Score:1)
Source: SpaceX doubles down on inaugural Falcon 9 mission [spaceflightnow.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Which, given the fact that fairings don't particularly represent a difficult design or development problem [1], indicates that something (major) is wrong at SpaceX. They're putting a good spin on it, but that doesn't change the basic nature.
[1] My mistake, I acted as if you actually knew this rather than just cutting and pasting words you don't understand.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Which, given the fact that fairings don't particularly represent a difficult design or development problem, indicates that something (major) is wrong at SpaceX.
So, you're saying that fairings are, to use the phrase, "not rocket science"? It's certainly true that a fairing design and implementation is not nearly as difficult a nut to crack as designing a new liquid-fueled engine completely from scratch, but fairings and fairing separations aren't something so inherently mundane that they can be ignored.
The aerodynamics are not so trivial you can just say, "Eh, that looks about right..." and be at an energy-optimal solution. Additionally, while it's trivial to ove
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what you are talking about. The Delta IV Heavy was launched with a dummy simulator. LMCO had retired enough risk for the Atlas V with Atlas III that they really didn't need a test flight. Falcon I did carry payloads, though I am not sure a University of Colorado student project really qualifies.
My point that ISS resupply is sole source is valid, and you have said nothing to refute it. One has only to point to the bankrupcy of Sea Launch to see that the commercial market is highly competive, e
Re: (Score:2)
That's one flight... There was more than one.
That's one booster. There is more than one booster.
Facts only fail to refute your claims when you ignore them. But then, that seems to be pa
Re: (Score:2)
Debacle? Since when is this (3 failures, then two successes) unusual for a *brand new, non-evolutionary launch stack*? Nobody willing to risk payloads? SpaceX has been flooded with new private launch contracts recently.
What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
If the Falcon I was 'non-evolutionary', you'd have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, what's its direct ancestor?
Re: (Score:2)
Any number of other boosters - there's nothing particularly revolutionary or new about it's design, construction, or manufacture.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bzzt, sorry! If you don't have a direct ancestor, you're not taking an evolutionary approach, and you have to debug full systems integration from scratch. None of their failures would have occurred if it were an evolutionary rocket -- the salt/metal incompatibility failure would have occurred on the parent rocket, the separation kick would have occurred on the parent rocket, and the slosh roll risk would have at least been hinted at by the parent rocket.
there's nothing particularly revolutionary or new ab
Potential Payload (Score:2, Interesting)
Still, I can think of one group that would love to send up a ton of cargo, e
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call the SpaceX Falcon 9 as "uninsurable", but it certainly would be a risky move to try and be on the first launch. SpaceX also has a rather poor record on what should be test flights too, where several payloads were lost on the Falcon 1 flight attempts before SpaceX got all of the bugs worked out.
Originally, the targeted payload on this flight was just going to be a dummy payload such as the "RatSat"... basically a hunk of aluminum that would be set up to simulate a "typical" payload for futur
There be dragons? (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't read the article, but wouldn't it make more sense to transport smaller lizards or even some amphibians?
I know dragons are fun and can light your space-cigarettes with their fire-breath, but lets be practical here.
Think, people... THINK!
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking they should just send the skin of the dragon [youtube.com] Gunney doesn't test the skin's effectiveness against cosmic rays or other radiation, but the skin should stop the random bit or space debris! All we need is a tailor to make us a set of dragonskin large enough for for the ISS!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But is it... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
neither.... it is an American falcon!
NASA Restructured As Space-Based FAA. (Score:4, Interesting)
I originally wanted to post this here http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/25/2328247/NASAs-Space-Plans-Take-Another-Hit [slashdot.org], but an unknown error prevented me from doing so. My commentary is still relevant for this article:
I think that NASA should be stripped down and restructured. All manned missions and support operations with a military application should be converted to their respective military counterparts, the whole thing headed up by Joint Chiefs of Staff. From Wikipedia, "their primary responsibility is to ensure the personnel readiness, policy, planning and training of their respective military services for the combatant commanders to utilize." The President and Secretary of Defense can tap the manned space capability of the respective military branches, and the JCS maintains training, policy and readiness. Oversight for military applications already has a process, which would remain in place.
NASA would be reduced or redesignated from it's current role to that of managing and conducing operations for unmanned space missions such as deep space probes and telescopes, establishing rules, standards and accident reviews for commercial space activities just like the FAA. NASA would also continue to provide tenantship to fixed orbital platforms such as the ISS, in conjunction with other participating nations. Every manned application is auctioned off to civilian corporations that meet specific minimal requirements. NASA would become the space analogy of the FAA, allowing a vacuum to exist allowing other responsible and qualified fair trade entities to step in and compete for the best possible road to commercial space business.
Re:NASA Restructured As Space-Based FAA. (Score:5, Informative)
From your original article, the biggest problem isn't NASA, it's the shortsighted, braindead, slimy, backhanded, hypocritical, nonsensical, bat-shit-insane, idiocratic and just plain old corrupt congress.
Re: (Score:2)
While congress needs to take its fair share of the blame, they don't have the market cornered on shortsighted, braindead, slimy, backhanded, hypocritical, nonsensical, bat-shit-insane, idiocratic and just plain old corrupt behaviour. Let's give NASA its due.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a wonderfully dysfunctional system.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just Congress - it's the Administration. (Remember NASA is part of the Executive Branch.) It's not NASA's job to have a Vision, it's NASA's job to work within and in support of the policies of the Administration and the Goverment.
NASA has floundered for decades because sucessive Administr
Re:NASA Restructured As Space-Based FAA. (Score:5, Funny)
Why did you use all those extra words? Just saying congress would have been enough.
NASA and Military space (Score:2)
I think that NASA should be stripped down and restructured. All manned missions and support operations with a military application should be converted to their respective military counterparts, the whole thing headed up by Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Done!
NASA doesn't do any manned military space. It's the civilian space program.
In fact, there is a military space program, run by the pentagon, and the military space program has a considerably larger budget than NASA does. For some reason, though, it doesn't get the endless armchair quarterbacking that the much smaller NASA programs do. (Possibly because the military space applications don't send humans into space, and don't send probes to other planets, and human spaceflight and planetary exploration
Satellite Retrieval, DoD Support... (Score:1)
I would categorically disagree with you, sir.
NASA has been in the manned military business for years. One of the stipulations (aka limitations) that the Pentagon placed on the Space Transportation System program was for the Space Shuttle to have low-earth orbit capability for satellite retrieval. Why would the Pentagon want to retrieve satellites or impose such a directive on the 'civilian' STS program, knowing it would sentence that vehicle to a vehicle lifespan shortening harsher environment with a narr
US Manned Military Programs... (Score:1)
Also, please show some references for the US military's own manned space program.
US Air Force Space Command - much of their ballistic mission capability was transferred to AF Global Strike Command. The USAFSC's space mission is defined as:
"Spacelift operations at the East and West Coast launch bases provide services, facilities and range safety control for the conduct of DOD, NASA and commercial launches. Through the command and control of all DOD satellites, satellite operators provide force-multiplying e
Re: (Score:2)
The Air Force indeed had a manned spaceflight program. Richard Truly [wikipedia.org] was one of those pilots that was a part of the first "class" of astronauts assigned directly to the U.S. Air Force under the Manned Orbiting Laboratory [wikipedia.org] program. That he did end up flying the Space Shuttle and became the administrator of NASA later on is sort of telling of the links between the military and NASA.
This was not some Air Force pilots who migrated over to NASA but a full-fledged military astronaut program and completely indepe
That was NOT a manned military space (Score:2)
OTH, a manned military space system would be the MOL had we launched it in the 60's [wikipedia.org] or one of the many Chinese Manned Space stations system that are scheduled to start launch in 2010. [space.com]
Whoops; Soviets had some (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I guess it all comes down to semantics. You say DoD doesn't do manned space missions, I say they do. They pay for them!
If the bill is paid for by DoD, the payload and/or tasking is classified, but the crew and launch vehicle are all NASA, then what is it? It's NASA doing military!! NASA was (at that time) in the best position to execute a manned US space mission. How can you confirm that DoD employed NASA to conduct several missions which had classified segments up to and including satellite retrieval,
Correction... (Score:1)
You say DoD doesn't do manned space missions, I say they do. They pay for them!
My bad, that entire sentence was incorrect. It should have read:
You say NASA doesn't do military manned space missions, I say they do. The DoD pays for them!
Re: (Score:2)
I would categorically disagree with you, sir. NASA has been in the manned military business for years. One of the stipulations (aka limitations) that the Pentagon placed on the Space Transportation System program was for the Space Shuttle to have low-earth orbit capability for satellite retrieval.
Are you aware that the Air Force withdrew out of the shuttle program over twenty years ago?
You're right that, by congressional mandate, the shuttle was mandated to be a vehicle that would meet requirements to launch both NASA and the Air Force's payloads-- and even then, the Air Force built their own shuttle launch pad at Vandenberg (SLC-6) and had every intention to do their own shuttle launches, with their own dedicated Air-Force crews and their own Air-Force shuttles. As it turned out, though, they pul
Re: (Score:1)
I also am talking about now. As I indicated elsewhere in this subthread, all of my statements are supported by two specific facts:
1. The STS program, maintained and operated by NASA, was required by the Pentagon to have low-orbit satellite retrieval capability.
2. The DoD employed NASA to conduct classified missions.
One such mission was STS-53 to carry "a classified primary payload for the United States Department of Defense" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-53#Mission_highlights [wikipedia.org].
Another such mission was ST
Re: (Score:2)
I also am talking about now.
We apparently have different ideas of the meaning of the word "now." The most recent of the launches you list was seventeen years ago. That's not what I call "now."
Once again. When congress approved the space shuttle program, they mandated there would be a single launch vehicle, which would be used by both the Air Force and NASA (and, for that matter, for commercial launches.) The Air Force would have their own vehicles, and their own launch site.
After the first few shuttle flights-- but before the Ai
Re: (Score:1)
Point taken on my selection of STS missions showing DoD involvement with NASA. I believe I underscored that extensively because your initial comment was that "NASA doesn't do military". I may have hit the same nail repeatedly, but I'm hoping we can agree that NASA has a history of doing DoD dirty work.
With that issue clarified, I'd now like to draw your important attention to this:
http://www.space.com/news/050810_dod_launcher.html [space.com]
"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Defense has signed off on NASA's plan
Re: (Score:2)
Point taken on my selection of STS missions showing DoD involvement with NASA. I believe I underscored that extensively because your initial comment was that "NASA doesn't do military".
I'm sorry, but my comment was a response to your statement that NASA should be reformed by moving military missions to the military. Congratulations. This was done. It was done decades ago.
With that issue clarified, I'd now like to draw your important attention to this:
http://www.space.com/news/050810_dod_launcher.html [space.com]
Let me summarize this for you:
1. The White House mandated that the Department of Defense must coordinate with NASA on new vehicles.
2. The NASA response was that they'll continue to buy expendable launch vehicles from the same launch providers they buy them from now, except if any new providers come up, they may buy f
Real bad idea (Score:2)
As other have pointed out, NASA does a great deal more than just manned space. They
Military vs civilian as a defense (Score:2)
"Worse, it means that ALL OF THE SYSTEMS are logical targets in a war. OTH, NASA would not be that kind of a target ..."
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is co-located with Kennedy Space Center. CCAFS is still an active military space port facility. Plus, while NASA may be a "civilian" agency, it's still a government agency. If someone decides they need to start taking out US space capabilities, I highly doubt the "civilian" distinction is going to matter to them, even if the attacker was of the fair-minded type. (To say nothing of the type that prefers high-profile civilian targets.)
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA was established to provide a civilian spaceflight option for the U.S. government. The civilian component was incredibly crucial at the time NASA was established, as all previous experience had been gained through military contracts. It is true that DoD participation and links continued (and still continue) within NASA, but most of what NASA does is unclassified and meets the needs of a civilian spaceflight program.
Take out that civilian aspect of NASA and you lose the heart and soul of what NASA is s
Re: (Score:1)
I think auctioning things off would be a huge mistake. Better to use prizes to encourage competition:
NASA would have a certain amount of dollars to put up as prizes, and would be in charge of the objectives, just not how they were accomplished.
The prizes could be substantial and would still be less than the $90 billion NASA will squan
Dragons! (Score:2, Funny)
thx /. for this one! Enjoyed the article and link (Score:1)
The difference between failure and screwing up (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between NASA and spacex is spacex is doing their test launches without taxpayer money. If a rocket fails it fails on their own dime so they better learn something from it...and they do. Thats why launches 4 & 5 worked fine..duh!
It should not bother anyone to have failures BEFORE success, how many times did Edison fail with the light bulb? several thousand. How many years did it take the wright brothers to perfect glider control with three different glider models before they created the fi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fairness here, it should be pointed out that there was some public money that went into the earlier SpaceX test flights for the Falcon 1. Yes, Elon Musk did put up a whole bunch of his own money and it should be pointed out that neither NASA nor the U.S. Department of Defense put up any money in terms of the R&D on the Falcon 1, but there was some DARPA money spent on most of those early launches with SpaceX.
The main difference between what SpaceX is doing and what the other rocket companies like Bo
Re: (Score:1)
If NASA blew up three rockets in a row, they would be crucified by the press, and (more notably) by congress
Which highlights just how true the OP's point was. Slimming down NASA and moving this sort of thing into the realm of companies like SpaceX avoids the kind of congressional hand-wringing that's inevitable when you have NASA responsible for things, but the hand-wringing is utterly pointless. You don't get to space (and we're not there yet -- we've just stuck our toes in the water so far) by being the kind of people that are phobic of failure. You have to be willing to fail, and fail repeatedly, and keep g
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The DOD and NASA blew up MANY more than that in it early days. And like SpaceX, they took some heat for it.
NASA contracts almost all of their work out to private companies, you know. A few probes are built by NASA labs (JPL in particular), but mostly the spacecraft are bid out to industry, and the launch services are also bid out to industry.
But the difference is that NASA tells just a FEW priva
Re: (Score:2)
If NASA blew up three rockets in a row, they would be crucified by the press, and (more notably) by congress
NASA blew up many, many more than three rockets in a row. Heck, they even blew up rockets on the launch pad... live and on nationally broadcast television. One rocket even blew up about a month before Alan Shepard made his first Mercury flight.
Was NASA crucified by the press and congress? Absolutely. Jokes were made about the ineptitude of NASA on the night-time comedy shows like the Tonight Show and other variety programming. Making rockets is a tough business and even seemingly small things can make
Re: (Score:1)
NASA contracts almost all of their work out to private companies, you know. A few probes are built by NASA labs (JPL in particular), but mostly the spacecraft are bid out to industry, and the launch services are also bid out to industry.
And a step further: JPL itself is staffed 100% by contractors. It's an FFRDC -- Federally Funded Research and Development Center. See the JPL welcome page [nasa.gov] and look for "FFRDC".
VC and spaceX (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX does seem to have plenty of venture capital, so I do think that this particular angle is being investigated. Due to the successful launches of the Falcon 1, SpaceX has been able to get most of the money it needs for day to day operations, although the government contracts also seem to be helping out quite a bit. Being guaranteed nearly $2 billion in revenue with signed contracts is certainly a huge carrot to dangle in front of potential investors on any project or company.
I think the main issue now
aiming too low (Score:1)
It says it has a maximum of 29,610 kg LEO capability - which would make it higher than any other rocket and half the launch cost of Ariane, so why don't they go to town with this and put everyone else out of business?
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, the feds will not allow one company to put others out of business. We need MULTIPLES of these to compete against each others. I would not mind paying a bit for ULA's private entry for at least a flight every 2 years or so. Once they lower their price to the same as SpaceX or lower, then give them the majority. Basically, we need more flights and more competition.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ariane is hardly made by a private company, so I highly doubt they would go "out of business" regardless of the price of the Falcon 9.
Still, SpaceX is going to be putting a huge amount of pressure on companies like ULA. From what I've read and heard, Boeing may be trying to break into the commercial spaceflight business with something more along the lines of what SpaceX is doing but using its own engineering experience and financial strength. Certainly there will be some competitors against SpaceX if
Show confidence (Score:2)
---
Space Craft [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]
I do not think that is what this is about (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has been involved with the development of the Falcon 9 at many of the stages, and there have been numerous design reviews that have happened as well... as per the COTS contracts.
In terms of the financial situation of Elon Musk, I should point out that Tesla Motors has been sucking him dry recently, and only his direct intervention seemed to turn that company around from a financial point of view. This has also caused SpaceX to be somewhat anemic and stretching Mr. Musk out in a number of other ways th