E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The reactions to today's successful maiden flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, a potential successor to the space shuttle, started streaming in long before the celebratory margaritas were poured. "My e-mail box has gone bonkers, and my phone has been ringing off the hook," SpaceX millionaire founder Elon Musk said. The eight-year-old company's fans were effusive in their praise, while others were in the "damn with faint praise" category. Here's a sampling of reactions from both sides, with an extra twist at the end:
STRONG PRAISE
• NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, who once said he would do everything in his power to make sure SpaceX and other commercial launch companies were successful:
"Congratulations to Space X on today's launch of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Space X's accomplishment is an important milestone in the commercial transportation effort and puts the company a step closer to providing cargo services to the International Space Station. Preparations are proceeding for the first NASA-sponsored test launch under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services project later this year. COTS is a vital development and demonstration partnership to create a commercial space transportation system capable of providing cargo to the station. This launch of the Falcon 9 gives us even more confidence that a resupply vehicle will be available after the space shuttle fleet is retired."
• The Planetary Society, which has championed the "flexible path" space exploration strategy now favored by the White House:
"It's hard not to launch into hyperbole at the success of the first Falcon 9 test flight. It is a tremendous achievement. Hats off to our Planetary Society Board member, Elon Musk, and his SpaceX team. In advancing commercial spaceflight, today's flight of Falcon 9 could be the first small step towards relieving NASA launchers of the burden of low-Earth orbit, thus freeing the U.S. space agency to reach new worlds. ..."
• The Commercial Spaceflight Federation passed along praise from an assortment of space heavyweights, including former NASA astronauts Rusty Schweickart (Apollo 9) and Byron Lichtenberg (STS-9, STS-45):
Schweickart: “As a former Apollo astronaut, I think it’s safe to say that SpaceX and the other commercial developers embody the 21st-century version of the Apollo frontier spirit. It’s enormously gratifying to see them succeed today.”
Lichtenberg: “I expect that there will be a lot more astronauts in the future because of today’s success. Lower cost launches means more flights, which means more astronauts. We’ve only had 500 astronauts in the history of the Space Age, but I hope to see thousands more in the decades to come.”
• Space consultant Charles Lurio, a tireless campaigner for the New Space movement and a tireless critic of the way NASA operates:
"Today’s flight should go a long way toward countering the hoary, 'magical negative thinking' of the past that led many to deride commercial spaceflight efforts. Of course, some will attempt to keep purveying those old myths, but their squawking should now be seen clearly than ever as the pitiful gasps of another era. The Falcon 9 flight, like that of SpaceShipOne, and like many others quietly being marked at pioneering venues around the country, shows that the path to practical spaceflight and commercial innovation driving a 'space PC revolution' is wide open."
• X Prize Chairman/CEO Peter Diamandis, who helped put together the $10 million Ansari X Prize to reward private-sector spaceflight and counts Musk as a member of his board of trustees:
"The maiden voyage of the Falcon 9 marks an important milestone in commercial spaceflight, proving what is achievable by privately-owned companies that are dedicated to pioneering new technologies and making space more accessible. Overcoming the high cost of launching to orbit continues to be a challenge faced by space-related ventures, and the emergence of launch vehicles such as the Falcon 9 contributes to an increasingly competitive environment in the launch vehicle market – a condition which has the potential to drive costs down and open the space frontier to the rest of us. In the not-too-distant future, we hope to see SpaceX and other commercial launch providers transporting crew and cargo to orbiting outposts, the moon, asteroids, and even Mars."
• The Space Frontier Foundation issued a news release that ended with this quote from one of its always-quotable founders, Rick Tumlinson:
“Some have decried the new American space program and harkened back to the good old elitist days of Apollo, and what they see as the end of the 'right stuff' mindset that took us to the moon. Well, they are dead wrong. You want to see excitement and drive of the early days of Apollo? You want to see the Right Stuff right now? Go visit SpaceX or any of the other NewSpace firms and teams out there reaching for the stars. It is alive and well!"
• Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who has been pushing for an extension of the space shuttle program and the restoration of funding for NASA's internal rocket development project, was "very excited" about the Falcon 9 launch during a congratulatory phone call, Musk said. The Politico website quoted Nelson as saying SpaceX's successful test suggests that the Falcon will be in "full operation delivering cargo to the International Space Station a year from now." It's unusual for Nelson, who has seemed a bit doubtful about NASA's moves toward commercialization, to be so positive about SpaceX's prospects. Other members of Congress have voiced sharp concerns about what NASA's shift will mean for traditional aerospace jobs. They've also voiced sharp doubts about the capabilities of commercial launch companies (which, by the way, happen to include traditional aerospace companies). And that brings us to ...
FAINT PRAISE
• Sen. Richard Shelby, the Alabama Republican who once said commercial launch providers "cannot even carry the trash back from the space station," was quoted by Politico as saying that today's launch merely replicated what "NASA accomplished in 1964":
"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."
• Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, a Florida Democrat whose district includes NASA's Kennedy Space Center, sounded ambivalent about one of the Space Coast's up-and-coming employers:
"The successful test launch of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is a significant step in the development of the commercial space industry. There is no doubt that commercial spaceflight will play an important role in the future of our efforts in space, and I believe private companies can bring new job opportunities for the Space Coast's highly skilled workforce. But we must both support the emerging commercial space industry and ensure a robust, NASA-led human spaceflight program in order to maintain our international leadership in space and keep our economy strong. I will continue fighting at every opportunity to minimize the human spaceflight gap, protect jobs, and ensure a bright future for the Space Coast."
• 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."
Hutchison's faint praise was particularly irksome to Musk, who has about 100 of SpaceX's 1,000 employees working at a test facility in McGregor, Texas.
"We do all of our engine testing and development in Texas," he told reporters. "We're one of the fastest-growing employers in Texas. Why is she trying to hurt a Texas company? That's wrong. And the people of Texas ought to be aware of that. The people of Texas ought to be electing politicians that are going to be working to help their state, not hurt their state."
It sounds as if the Falcon 9 launch wasn't the only fireworks display going on around SpaceX today. What do you think? Should politicians be judged based on where they stand on spaceflight issues, or do other issues (such as the oil spill aftermath) loom larger on the political landscape? Feel free to leave your comments below.
Correction for 11:11 p.m. ET: Of course Sen. Shelby is from Alabama rather than Arkansas. Sorry about that. ... Thanks for calling the error to my attention. Chalk it up to a long day at the end of a long week.
For more about the political dimension of space, check out Jeff Foust's Space Politics weblog, as well as Clark Lindsey's Space Transport News, Keith Cowing's NASA Watch and Rand Simberg's Transterrestrial Musings. Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
The ingorant amoung you might be surprised to learn that every bit of propulsion technology utilized on the maiden flight of Falcon 9 was developed by NASA. SpaceX just bolted it together; devevelped nothing.
Mostly right. (Not that NASA has some absolute monopoly on rocket tech, they started with what we got from Germany.) So?
From the NASA Charter:
"(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space."
R&D is what NASA is for. It looks to me as if the system is working (for a change) exactly as it should. Even so, Falcon1/9 aren't direct copies of anything developed by or for NASA (the Merlin engines, for example), either.
It might surprise everyone to learn that the propulsion systems and avionics ultilized on the Falcon 9 vehicle were developed by NASA. SpaceX did nothing extraordinary; just bolted it all together.
Something NASA was incapable of doing for the price, since it would not line the pockets of their cronies.
in Australia some thought this was a UFO!!.....right now I am certain that the only country in the world that will allow a private space program is the USA!!!...please correct me if I am wrong....
also, guess I better mention NACA....long before NASA and in a political climate long forgotten....
I tip my hat to Elon and crew. As a fellow entrepreneur (that can't spell)...(ok maybe Eddie Murphy had it correct...entre manure...jus kidding) I am....., and I think this underlies a lot of comments from many...I am jealous!!....but thats ok, capitalism is competitive...I hate to think of expected layoffs of NASA engineers (like that never happened before..)..but, with all that talent hitting the market...maybe some will land over here at the science foundry (as long as they are willing to work on promises and paper shares that is)..or perhaps over at musk en crew or bigelow or (insert your company here)!!!...Well...what have you?...more taxes?...I guess some think we should catch the fish, skin it, cook it and spoon feed it to the poor...hey, I made that 4 hour trek for water before.....the whole way I dreamed of the day I could have my own spaceship!!....RIGHT ON!!!...teach me to fish, I will fish....let me build my own spaceship and....ok, so I am miles behind musk's work....but give me access to the same NASA data that allowed them build a rocket ship!!!...with out, well, all I can do is start building weather ballon mockups of the USS Enterprise....but don't knock it, I hope there are others out there looking at alternate propulsion and vastly different construction technique!!!...no comparisons will do. Just back clear of the edisons, teslas, fords, and yes, even the rube goldbergs and guess what??....ufo's over australia!!...no,wait, you get the idea. In summation, any sober American, free spirit or even day dreamer is DAMN PROUD OF YOU ELON!!!...and that slight reservation in some of the posts?....know it yourself for what it is and you be proud of that elon...IT IS ENVY!!!!!!
politics will change. Often like a pendulum, but more to the point....FOR VOTES....nothing else really...sure they want the position for power and glory, I understand that, and with it comes the lure of money...but behind it all is everyone that votes...and maybe a few that don't (hint at chinese fundraisers...but I like the clintons anyways and a fair number of repubs too, and some greenies and a couple of undeclareds as well)....me, If I could feel that government worked with me, then I would feel even better about ELONS spaceX triumph, or at least not so distracted...I hope the spacex people feel like government at least tried not encumber their efforts, If so I hope they can try to show other up and coming ventures that it is a govt of the people not of the paperwork....the naysayers have plenty of models to reflect upon, now at least they have a positive success to point to and question the worlds flatness.....I live in pa and would love to launch a vehicle in the spirit of phila,pitt,hbg et all, and I would love to see every single one of the states and territories, at the very least, have the leader come out and say...ELON DID IT!!..CAN YOU?...they do not have to spend a single dime, just encourage the reach for space. Thank you Alan for allowing me my meager two cents, AND THANK YOU SPACEX for showing EXACTLY WHY THE USA IS NUMBER 1.
It does not matter who the prez is, it does not matter what party runs (the typo was ruins) this nation...WHAT MATTERS IS WHATS IN YOUR HEART!!!....those who want to help the impoverished, please do so with out anymore lip-service...that's the true disgrace...remember what is in your heart...and those who want to start a space venture...it's been prov-en again, and again, and again.....THE WILL OF THE FREE IS STOPPED BY NO BARRIER!!!
CONGRATS SPACEX>>>but don't rest now, we, the competition now have even more reason to catch up!!!
I applaud the achievment of a LEO that was not funded with tax-payer dollars. I'm all for turning over the mundane re-supply missions to private companies.
I can agree with dumping Orion/Ares - old technology, old news.
I cannot agree with abandoning the moon to China, Japan, and Russia.
Besides the obvious benefit of having astronomical obverservations from the far side, we seem to have forgotten the entire point of returning to the moon and establishing a permanent outpost is that this is the most obvious next step in space exploration. Our space program, like any successful R&D program, learns and builds from it's previous steps.
We have already achieved a continuously-inhabited space outpost in low eath orbit. The logical next step is to build upon this knowledge and establish a permanently occupied outpost on the moon. I can hardly imagine all of the new and surprising discoveries that could be made.
And the main reason for "colonizing" the moon was to learn as much as we could, to take the next steps to other planets and the asteroids, or wherever we chose to explore. What we can learn from missions to the moon would save countless lives on our journey to Mars.
Cancelling a program that has been throwing money down the rabbit hole of the past is good.
Forgetting what path you were on is dangerous.
Perhaps we shouldn't go to the Moon or Mars at all. I refer you to 'The High Frontier' by Gerard K. O'Neill. or the Space Studies Institute. Visionary and provocative.
So, this is what we taxpayers get for BILLION DOLLARS of public money? Nice. A new, very, very secret rocket. No news, except what SpaceX and Obama want us to hear. Nice. Not.
what are you talking about? this is a spacecraft developed by the private corporation SpaceX with money from private investors (i.e. NOT Taxpayer dollars). they were awarded a govrnment contract only after they had launched thier falcon 1 and had enough proof that they could handle the job. Obama has nothing to do with it at all.
turn off fox news, remove your tinfoil hat and relax a little. this may be new, but its not a secret. if you haven't heard of it before now, you just haven't been reading the right bits of the internet.
You're wrong on every count, Abe. 'Private investors' did not fund SpaceX,or 'Falcon 9' public funds did. Obama's signature was the final act authorizing that. I've worked in the aerospace community for forty years, I'm informed.
Why can't you write a coherent paragraph without personal attacks? Is that all you've got?
Secret? What do you want to know? Launch video is all over. Google 'SpaceX' or 'Falcon 9' or 'ElonMusk' and be prepared to be drowned in hits.
It's things like the contents of the X-37 payload bay that constitute 'secret' (and they readily admit this) stuff...
And as as has been pointed out, this commercial launcher predates the Obama Administration.
Will they have some government launch contracts, however? Yes. What a shock.
please link me your sources, Lifeonmars, I've not been able to find any thing to indicate that SpaceX has received any governemt funding beyond the COTS contract i mentioned. which they received after launching thier Falcon 1 on thier own dime and proving they would handle LOE. Do a search, you will find article after article detailing the private fundraising and private investors who put money into this, not to mention Elon Musk who put $100million of his own money into this.
its still irrelevant because SpaceX has been around for 8 years. thats 7 years Longer than Obama. he may have stepped in in the last year to encourage SpaceX, but they have been on this path since long before Obama was president.
Well, Kudos to the Space X Team. They built on 52 years of NASA technology and made it work. Good for them. Now we're back to somewhere around 1960 - 1965 capabilities for unmanned payloads. For manned spaceflight, the USA is back to 1956 or 1957. Just some unproven ideas on some drawing boards. No commitments whatsoever. No astronaut corps after the last shuttle flight. I used to think that Richard Nixon was the biggest villain in US space exploration history. Now it is Barack Obama by a country mile.The man is a first class fool with regard to space exploration. ("We don't need to go the moon again! We've already been there!") Ignore a 2100 mile wide body with water on it that is only 240,000 miles away and go to a 6 mile wide asteroid that is millions of miles away! I guess that math, statistics, and risk weren't his strong points at Harvard! The USA will be a 3rd rate space power for the next generation or two, while China and India explore the Moon and go on to Mars. Then from a more pragmatic perspective, layoff 20,000 workers at Cape Canaveral, and maybe another 80,00
the problem with NASA is not necessarily Obama, its that it is a govenment program. like all government programs, it doesn't answer to stockholders, or have to deal with competition so there is no drive to streamline things or work more economicaly. add to that the fact that every few years we have a new president and/or congress that gives them a new mission and you get a massively bloated program with money being thrown away left and right.
in my opinion, Obama was right to cut Constelation, it was a bad program. it was poorly managed, over budget, and developed with ridged inside-the-box thinking. if american taxpayers spend another dime on manned spaceflight, we need new ideas.
those ideas will likely come from private sector companies like SpaceX who have motivation to make thier space ships cost effective. If anything, Obama should be praised for allowing the fledgeling private sector space industry to grow.
NASA has had some great successes, however it has also shown some serious organizational and engineering problems. I welcome outside entrepreneurship. My major concern is that Obama administration may be moving toward the "outsourcing" model that Bush used on the military with some disastrous consequences.
From an editorial perspective, I find it interesting that MSN chose to site principally "foes" who were politicians from areas that had a vested interest in existing NASA programs. Surely there must be some doubters who have non-political qualifications.
NASA has executed some outstanding programs over the years, but they have also had failures of engineering and program management. I welcome the entry of entrepreneurship. My concern is that the Obama administration's initiative to encourage it not become like the Bush administration moves to "privatize" military activities. That has proved disastrous in several areas.
This was my first visit to this part of MSN.NBC's site, so I am not sure by whom the article was originally written. From an enditorial perspective, I cannot but wonder if they could not have found "foes" who were experts in something other than the politics of regiions with a vested interested in NASA.
I for one am glad to see the shuttle go. A thirty year mistake that was both costly and dangerous sporting a 2% failure rate. In short a worthless piece of crap. If we would have continued with the SaturnV program we could have built the space station for half the price in half the time. The Saturn INT-21, the version that launched Skylab, could place 165,000 pounds into low earth orbit, VS the shuttles anemic 54,000 pounds. In two or three launches the Saturn INT-21 could build in orbit a space craft capable of going to Mars. We had the capability go to Mars decades ago, but no we thew it away with the Shuttle program. It seems to me SpaceX is on the right track by building a rocket that is both useful and affordable something the Shuttle has never been.
". If we would have continued with the SaturnV program we could have built the space station for half the price in half the time."
A: You don't know that.
B: We stopped building Saturn 5s because we stopped doing the things that required them. Not the other way around. Saturn existed because Apollo needed it. Not the other way around. Remember, we didn't even fly the last three on Lunar missions at all, even though the rest of the hardware existed, too. One did launch a space station (Skylab). The other two are lawn ornaments now, at KSC and JSC.
We needed a re-usable launch vehicle. We still do. The Space Shuttle, at worst, was a poor implementation of a perfectly sound requirement.
Unless you'd prefer to litter the Atlantic with expendable rocket stages (anyone's expendable rocket stages, even SpaceX's) till the end of time...?
I for one am glad to see the shuttle go. A thirty year mistake that was both costly and dangerous sporting a 2% failure rate. In short a worthless piece of crap. If we would have continued with the SaturnV program we could have built the space station for half the price in half the time. The Saturn INT-21, the version that launched Skylab, could place 165,000 pounds into low earth orbit, VS the shuttles anemic 54,000 pounds. In two or three launches the Saturn INT-21 could build in orbit a space craft capable of going to Mars. We had the capability go to Mars decades ago, but no we thew it away with the Shuttle program. It seems to me SpaceX is on the right track by building a rocket that is both useful and affordable something the Shuttle has never been.
While Falcon 9 was on the launch pad with only the core rocket stack, it appeared to be smaller than it really is. It's difficult to trick the mind into believing it's sixteen feet taller than Soyuz (even with its crew escape tower), and very close to the Shuttle. Maybe when Falcon 9 heavy, with two outboard rockets, and its advertised 70,000 pound LEO lift capacity (vs. 50,000 or so for STS), hit's the pad it will be taken even more seriously.
Greater things are yet to come
And greater things are still to be done
~Chris Tomilin
Totally “EPIC”! Congratulations to Space X! From Team Just Ducky (8th and 9th Graders)
Team Just Ducky’s challenge is to design, construct and program a robot that performs simulated lunar missions using a LEGO® Mindstorm robot that we named EPIC. We are based in Woodbury, Minnesota. This challenge is based on the Lunar X Prize, for a private, non-government space craft to go to the moon and perform required lunar missions in order to win $30 million dollars. Team Just Ducky believes that it is important to partner with industry leaders to provide frequent low cost space ventures, create new technology, and solve pressing environmental needs and world economic worries. We think the Google Lunar X Prize Challenge provides non-government approaches, competition and alternative ideas. Unmanned travel proves to be more economical and will allow spacecraft to get to mars and the moon faster. Presently, Team Just Ducky is researching potential moon resources to help alleviate energy problems here on Earth. Resulting technology created for use in space travel, serves humanity on Earth in several different ways. Sustaining space travel will permit frequent trips to the moon, generate future space stations, allow colonization, and provide the ability to launch missions deeper into space.
Here is our very short clip that answers the question, "Why should we go to the moon".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MNIVzhu0jA
Cool!
Basically NASA is run by the government, which by itself makes it a massively wasteful program... On the otherhand there has been alot of breakthroughs with technology, but why does a government program have to always be wasteful ??? If we could answer that question, we could have something to look forward to, otherwise cost will doom many gov. programs.