E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSpaceX video of the Falcon 9 rocket's Oct. 7 ascent shows an engine anomaly at the 1:30 mark in the video, or T+00:01:19. A slow-motion version can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998
Although SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket successfully sent its Dragon cargo capsule toward the International Space Station, an engine failure and a less-than-nominal satellite deployment suggest that the company has some technical issues to resolve for future flights.
The California-based rocket company acknowledged soon after Sunday night's launch that one of the nine Merlin engines on the Falcon's first stage shut down, but the onboard computer recalculated the data for the other eight engines to get the Dragon in orbit and save the resupply mission.
Some observers pointed to SpaceX's long-range video of the ascent and pointed to what they thought was debris from an explosion. Today, SpaceX issued a statement saying that the engine didn't explode — but that protective panels were ejected because of the pressure loss associated with the shutdown:
"Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first-stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event.
"As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon's entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.
"Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V (which experienced engine loss on two flights) and modern airliners, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine-out situation and still complete its mission. No other rocket currently flying has this ability.
"It is worth noting that Falcon 9 shuts down two of its engines to limit acceleration to 5 G's even on a fully nominal flight. The rocket could therefore have lost another engine and still completed its mission.
"We will continue to review all flight data in order to understand the cause of the anomaly, and will devote the resources necessary to identify the problem and apply those lessons to future flights. We will provide additional information as it becomes available.
"Dragon is expected to begin its approach to the station on October 10, where it will be grappled and berthed by Akihiko Hoshide of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and Expedition 33 Commander Sunita Williams of NASA. Over the following weeks, the crew will unload Dragon's payload and reload it with cargo to be returned to Earth. Splashdown is targeted for October 28."
There's a lingering question about the engine anomaly: What caused the sudden pressure loss?
Satellite in wrong orbit
Another question has yet to be fully resolved: What will happen to the Orbcomm OG2 telecommunication satellite, which rode into orbit as a secondary payload on the Falcon 9's second stage? The prototype satellite was supposed to be put into a highly inclined orbit after a second-stage restart, and serve as the first piece of a new 18-satellite telecom constellation.
On Sunday night, SpaceX said the satellite was "successfully deployed" — but Orbcomm acknowledged in a statement today that the satellite was deployed into the wrong orbit because of the engine anomaly. Here's the relevant excerpt:
"... Due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first-stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended. Orbcomm and Sierra Nevada Corp. engineers have been in contact with the satellite and are working to determine if and the extent to which the orbit can be raised to an operational orbit using the satellite’s on-board propulsion system.
"In mid-2013, Orbcomm plans to launch an additional eight OG2 satellites on a Falcon 9, which will be placed into orbits that are optimized to deliver the best coverage for the enhanced OG2 messaging services. The remainder of the constellation of 18 OG2 satellites is expected to be launched on a Falcon 9 in 2014. Orbcomm’s OG2 satellites will be the primary payload on both of these two planned launches to directly insert the OG2 satellites into the operational orbit."
Orbcomm's statement came after satellite-watcher Jonathan McDowell called attention to the fact that the satellite showed up in the Space-Track database as having a 203-by-323-kilometer orbit rather than the planned 350-by-750-kilometer orbit.
Looking on the bright side
Going forward, SpaceX should follow through on its pledge to "apply lessons to future flights," as it said in its statement. And skeptics should keep in mind that this is rocket science, which is "super-frickin'-damn-hard," to use SpaceX founder Elon Musk's words. It's a tribute to Musk's design that the Dragon's mission was unaffected by the loss of one rocket engine. On Sunday night, he pointed out in an email to NASA Watch that few if any other existing launch vehicles could have weathered that kind of problem: "I believe F9 is the only rocket flying today that, like a modern airliner, is capable of completing a flight successfully even after losing an engine."
What do you think? Does the Dragon's rise represent Falcon's finest hour, or do the problems point to a chink in SpaceX's armor? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
The $1.6 billion space journey is the first routine cargo delivery to the International Space Station by a private company. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
Update for 4:15 p.m. ET: I've updated SpaceX's previous update (which referred to an engine fairing) with the current update (which pointed to protective panels instead).
Update for 6:30 p.m. ET: I've added a link to the Orbcomm statement confirming that its OG2 satellite ended up in a lower-than-expected orbit.
More about commercial space:
- Dragon liftoff begins the new normal for NASA
- SpaceX flight gets its own mission patch
- Why SpaceX is setting the pace in space race
- Florida wants NASA land for commercial ventures
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Cub Reporter Alan Boyle appears to have a chip on his shoulder, not giving fair and balanced coverage of SpaceX, perhaps he is paid by Boeing or other companies competing for the NASA contract. As time has shown, there will always be issues with space exploration. The very fact the rocket continued as planned and will most likely perform a successful mission shows how far SpaceX has come. Compared to the faltering Russian program, Alan has nothing to complain about. Might want to do better due diligence Alan before you post your next article, readers deserve better. Question is can you meet the standard?
I can't see what you're problem is. The article was very fair. Alan said that there were problems and that the project has critics. The first is fact. The second is obvious if you've ever read one of the comment threads under these SpaceX articles. It seems to me that you're being a little too defensive of SpaceX, here.
Thanks for the good word, SF Accountant. This story has been shifting around all day, so it's tricky to keep track of all the info that's out there (and not out there), even for a cub reporter who's been in journalism for 35 years. I do try to meet the standard, and acknowledge that every once in a while I still fall short.
Should Alan get a spanking voyager2k ?
I have to give SF accountant a vote .
Thanks for the article Alan .
I enjoyed it .
Alan is one of the *very* few reporters that covers the space industry every day- not just when there is a particularly fashionable story. I have nothing but respect and praise for Alan's reporting. I am *definitely* a SpaceX Fanboy and I take no issue with his reporting. Period.
Falcon9 works, even when facing adversity. Deploying the satellite was a secondary objective. I am a little surprised that they tried a multi-deployment mission this early in the operational history, but hindsight is always 20/20. They took a calculated risk with a secondary payload and it almost worked. "Almost" is the trickiest part of rocket science- and maybe journalism.
Alan- you take care of the journalism. We'll take care of the trolls.
Any engineer will tell you that having technical problems crop up in the early stages of a product is normal. They will ultimately be resolved.
It's an outstanding accomplishment that this thing got into orbit.
The issue is the conflicting ideas it brings to mind. It was remarkable for the same reason over a half century ago when the American and USSR governments put people into space. You are absolutely right that this is normal for R&D and spaceX will do fine in the future, but it's a bit frustrating for us all to have to relive this again because of what amounts to a small design change to the larger field of rocketry. If this has to happen for every rocket developed, perhaps it is time to find a new method of getting into space.
@ Student
Rockets are complex there are a lot of ways a new system could fail even half a century after people were first sent into space. I for one wouldn't want to risk a payload or my life using a rocket that hasn't been thoroughly tested either. SpaceX has done a good job of this so far.
That's what I said. I had no political implications in my comments. That's why rockets can't be the ultimate solution for space travel......each one has to be thoroughly tested.
@ Student: While I share your frustration about the limitations of chemical rockets (from a cost and risk standpoint), we're stuck with them, for a while. We have a number of additional options once in space (ion drive, VASIMR, nuclear, etc.), but our options for getting into LEO from Earth are quite limited. Current technology is still not there yet for the space elevator (however, it IS sufficient for a Lunar space elevator--hopefully, LiftPort will get the $3 million it is seeking for a feasibility study). A Maglev/railgun could be built providing very cheap variable costs per launch, but the capital costs would be enormous (certainly for human cargo). Hopefully, the Skylon project will get additional funding to take the next step in their spaceplane's development (which is currently in the early, yet promising stage). In the meantime, I'm rooting for Elon Musk...
@Student
ok i see what you're saying now. still I have to agree with Jay in the short term we're pretty much stuck with them.
So, just to make sure I have this, there were possibly three problems:
1. hardware failure: engine out
2. computer failure: second stage did not reignite after initial orbit achieved
3. hardware (?) failure: despite achieving desired orbit, secondary payload was not deployed at the right inclination
These problems can (and must) be overcome, but I don't think we should be downsizing NASA's role in low Earth orbit missions yet.
I don't think we should be downsizing NASA's role in low Earth orbit missions yet.
====== =
We CAN'T 'downsize NASA's role in low earth orbit missions'... because NASA HAS NO ROLE... because Nasa HAS NO ORBITAL CAPACITY...
Pork driven Nasa wasted $20 billion on it's failed/canceled Constellation... while SpaceX produced far superior boosters/capsules for only $300 million...
Nasa is just another bloated, red-tape, pork driven Federal bureaucracy... Nasa should be downsized back to NACA levels, then use the NSF to directly fund Caltech's JPL for probes, and private enterprise like SpaceX for US manned space program.
I look at SpaceX and think to myself “look what American ingenuity can do”. NASA was necessary to get us going but NASA should have gone away right after we landed on the moon. I wish that we had 20 SpaceX companies competing with one another. With private industry doing the job of space travel we most likely would have already sent a man to Mars and had some sort of endeavor going. The government has no business doing space business anymore than they should own and operate the Airlines or anything else. Competition is what makes the world go around and stimulates growth. The government being in any business is like a giant sluggish anchor being dragged around. When the government regulated the phone company and only AT&T could create things we had to buy and install special devices before we could hook up a Modem to the telephone line. Transmission speeds were restricted to 1200 BAUD max for years. When Judge Greene kicked the government out of the phone business we had an explosion of technology occur. The fact that we are able to even be reading this on the internet is because the government got kicked out of this industry and private industry took over. Ma belle would have never let cell phones be created. Just like Apple almost died in the computer field they didn’t want to allow others have the technology and kept it close to them . IBM allowed the cloning of the microchip and PC’s were born. If Apple hadn’t let Steve Jobs come up with the iPhone and the I this and I that Apple would be unknown. Competition is what creates stimulates innovation.
NASA's last great feat was putting a man on the moon and since that time Space has been dying. Their next two major endeavors the Space Shuttle and the ISS have been the biggest waste time and burning of taxpayer money in years. Now the geniuses have come up with the next great man in space thing being 1969 technology "Orion". NASA being gutted of funds has killed their ability to think and have vision. Obama’s “Forward” for anything in this country really means “Backwards Ho”. Now Obama has them outreaching to Muslims. What the Hell does NASA have to do with Muslims? Worst thing is that congress is going along with it. No if NASA was forced to share their knowledge with SpaceX and other endeavors space travel would be revolutionized. This is a huge achievement and if NASA would get out of the way and let these companies share in the known technology space travel would be booming. Boeing, Martin Marietta, Lockheed, etc should be building and flying these ships not NASA. Then we would have something we could really be proud of. We also would have to stop allowing foreign governments into the technology and make it an all American venture. Not only would America be booming again but so would the world.
You have a lot of verbose posts on this board and others like it, but the problem is no one is really arguing with you.
You have stated a reasonable case based on the outcome of spaceflight (and it is reasonable only on the outcome of spaceflight, never mind where our scientists decide to go to compete with the USA), and you keep arguing with yourself. Take a chill pill. There is a balance to strike in R&D endeavors between powerful technological solutions and mass application, and we are striking it.
Also, for absolute clarity: landing the MSL on Mars was by far and away a greater engineering feat than putting a man on the moon. No other government or corporation in the world could accomplish that, and likely won't be able to for another couple decades without NASA's help. It looks like you understand the highlights in the history of human spaceflight, but have a limited understanding of the science and strategy.
@ihateliberals
I'm glad somebody decided to go on the Obama bashing route on this. Good work tying in your latent bigotry too.
"Boeing, Martin Marietta, Lockheed, etc should be building and flying these ships not NASA."
True but that is not in their business/profit plan..its a whole lot easier to hire tons of lobbyists to wine and dine congressman to fund NASA with inflated rigged bid budgets! Now when SpaceX is a success as it will be and changes the business plan of space exploration then the Governement darlings Boeing, Martin Marietta, Lockheed might step up to the plate..but do not count on it as they seem to be enamored with selling the government Drones...again no bid rigged contracts with limitless profit potential!
go for it SpaceX... wish there were more companies that had titanium balls like you!
ihateliberls - There is plenty of things to picking on Obama for not his support of commercial space and specifically SpaceX. You just have your facts wrong here. Obama actions with regards to SpaceX almost match exactly what you stated in your 1st paragraph. This is exactly what happened with SpaceX and NASA.
Your 2nd paragraph is just fiction. Boeing, Martin Marietta, Lockheed, etc have been building systems for the last 50 years for NASA with big fat pork from congress. They enjoyed big fat bacon laden "Cost Plus" contract on the tax payer dime. Can you say corporate welfare? What do you think happens when a business can't lose money and all of their costs are covered plus a guaranteed profit the plus part? Do projects finish on time and on budget? Or did these old NASA contractors charge the tax payer $500 for a $5 box of bolts? Guess who pays if SpaceX goes over budget or if SpaceX misses a deadline? It isn't the tax payers!
How did you inject anything about "the Muslims" into a SpaceX article? Really? Obviously that tips your hand into an agenda that actually has nothing to do with the article. I mean why not just bring up his birth certificate while your at it!
@UniversityofChicagoStudent
The Soviet Union successfully delivered a larger payload to Mars in 1971. The payload quit working after a short time, but the landing worked successfully.
Barack Obama, cancelled America's human space flight program! So much for a civilian program, with minimum NASA involvement! Thousands of Highly skilled, highly educated, Aerospace workers were lay-ed off! Setting America's space program back years!
Romney Ryan-2012!
No, he didn't.
"Barack Obama, cancelled America's human space flight program!"
Exactly where has that ever been said?
First, he continued Commercial Crew (started under the last administration). Dragon is part of that.
Second, the Shuttle retirement began in January of 2004. Congress signed off on it. The last mission would be on the next President's watch, no matter who it was.
Third, Americans still go not space, just not on US launchers...for now. See Commercial Crew above.
Fourth. Constellation deserved a stake driven through its heart. It would not have had the first manned Orion/Ares-I launch until 2017. Ares V not flying until maybe mid 2020's. Lunar landings...when? The Altair lander was cancelled out before Obama. The schedule was slipping by a rate greater than one year, per year. If it finally got together somewhere around 2030, And after an insane amount of money, you'd have a capability only slightly better than Apollo.
We can do better, with the existing NASA budget, if we step away from the idea that anything we do absolutely must look like Apollo, including a massive launcher that no one, even NASA, needs at this time. Existing, in-production launchers and orbital assembly/refueling are adequate.
Fifth, there's no line item in the budget called 'the space program' (manned or otherwise) to cancel. There is the budget of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They do manned space flight, unmanned space flight, aeronautics, etc. The Defense Department does many things, a few of which also involve (unmanned, so far) space operations.
'The space program' is a phrase we also need to get away from. There's no 'air' program, no 'sea' program. It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. There are a number of specific things we do in space (including commercial). There will be more (especially commercial). It's less and less meaningful to think of them all as part of some overarching, almighty 'program,' any more than aviation is.
"So much for a civilian program, with minimum NASA involvement!"
That will ultimately happen, no matter what. 'Space' does to belong to NASA, nor should it.
"Thousands of Highly skilled, highly educated, Aerospace workers were lay-ed off!"
See above. That's always the price of working for a government contractor. specific projects either get cancelled, or they come to their expected end. For the DoD, when the intended number of planes, ships, submarines, whatever are built, the contract is satisfied, and it's only a matter of spares from then on. No one expected the Shuttle to fly forever. Did you? Is the number of people employed on a project the figure of merit? Or is it the achievement of whatever the original goal was? If it's the former...it's a jobs program. But if that's what's important, don't ever ask again why space flight is so expensive.
Oh, and those still working on Orion and SLS hardly seem 'layed-off.'
"Setting America's space program back years!"
See above. Where exactly were we going, to be set back from? (and I don't mean single-minded 'destinations,' I mean improving our overall ability to do useful and profitable things in space. In the end, without lowering the cost to LEO, nothing else matters. Otherwise you'll perhaps put 'boots on the ground' in some gravity well again, but you'll never be able to afford to sustain it...again.
Risk1; I'M NOT SURPRISED! It didn't take long for some WACKO TEApublican to blame President Obama for something he had NOTHING to do with. It's One Foolish Idea to allow backward political thinking to get in the way of a WONDERFUL private American accomplishment in space. WAY TO GO, SPACEX!
Risk1, you are incorrect, back under your bridge.
Blame Obama for things he did but don't blame him for things he didn't do.
Obama has been a staunch supporter of SpaceX and commercial space. You would think the other side would point to Obama's support of privatizing of NASA's procurement of launch services as a banner example of how government should be run. You can still bash his for other thing but give him credit for accepting what traditionally has been a conservative battle cry.
Yes, Obama cancelled the bloated Constellation Program. It was a disaster! Way over budget and behind schedule. A giant piece of pork for the "Space States". He backed SpaceX and their non cost plus contracting model. It is a winner for the tax payers! Much more bang for the buck.
I mean you still have plenty of opportunity to blame Obama for not fixing the giant mess handed to him as soon as he took office. And you still have a few week to convince everyone that we need to put the party back in office that created the mess we find ourselves in. I am not the biggest fan of Obama but his critics just don't make valid arguments and putting the people back in power who created this mess in the first place just doesn't seem like a good plan.
*laughs*
Ok Philly. You're right, people shouldn't blame Obama for things he didn't do. However, that also means you can't blame the republican party for the 2007 mess that was mostly created by the democrats.
Either way, this stuff doesn't belong here on this thread.
Mitchell
Hey, Rocketman! Right. Looks like the same systems, just a different contractor! As a former SSME MPS Design Engineer what I find most remarkable is the ABSENCE of voices noticing the problem probably due to a lack of sufficient sensors to even NOTICE the problem. NASA past, there would all nighters with 200 engineers working the issue real time. I wish the 5 guys at SpaceX lucky hunting with no data. These engines are basically shuttle SSMEs and the historical problems are repeating circa 1980s with forcefully repeated dangers via Obama's NASA brain drain working an under-educated population. No astronaut (now cosmonaut) will ride a Falcon 9 now! Imagine the savings now after mega-delays man-certifying this thing....and to imagine I voted for him too. I guess the brain drain was worse than envisioned!
"These engines are basically shuttle SSMEs..."
How is that so, when the Merlins are LOX/kerosene engines, no staged combustion, and about one-third the chamber pressure?
I'm not a trained rocket engineer of any kind, and I know that much...
"No astronaut (now cosmonaut) will ride a Falcon 9 now!
And no SSME has ever had an early shutdown on ascent? (and also went on to complete its mission, I might add)
Meanwhile, the Russians had one staging accident requiring mission abort of their own...
Nasa promised a 'cheap, safe, reliable access to space' Shuttle for $7 million/flight... then delivered a $1.5 billion/flight boondoggle which killed 2 crew and had several multi-year service outages... Nasa's shuttle was the most bankrupting unaffordable/unsustainable, dangerous, unreliable space vehicle in history..
Let's face it, Nasa has proven it can work with humans in space with the space station and hubble space telescope. Time to push on. Start in earnest going about building the next space station beyond the moon, lets get the heavy liftoff rocket ready, lets push on with technology capable of sustaining human life on the moon and beyond. I personally think all this gov't money to aid a few private enterprises to send a few parcels into low earth orbit is wasteful and not necessary.
Then how do you propose we get supplies to those chaps in the space station? Just leave it to the Russians?
I don't see how it's a bad thing to have private companies going into space, along with NASA.
If a manned Russian rocket with an American astronaut on board destined for the space station blows up, that is it for Americans living on the space station. A few Russian space craft have not done so well recently. What a policy error by the gov't to stop the shuttles and have a very good chance of having no way getting Americans to the space station. We need to elect better officials.
Romney wants to get back to his home planet, talk about an "alien" he is the real deal!
Some folks never cease to amaze me.........When you take a object that weighs 500,000 lbs, then push it to 17,000 mph. You "might" just experience a failure every now and then. Geez. . . . .When the shuttle was flying, we were taking a object about the size of a 737 jet (which cruises in the low 500 mph range) and Nasa was putting into a LEO, at about 17,000 mph.
Hmmm......Sounds a little dangerous eh ? Oh and by the way, the environment it's going into is a vacuum. It's also 250' in the sunlight and it's -200' in the shade. That's a tad rough on man and material. I've always felt the exploration of space should be a military project.
For a couple of reasons........For one, it'll get funded. Two.....We ARE going to lose people, going to Mars. Just like man has lost people exploring on earth, were going to lose folks in space. If they're civilians, it just might kill the project. Going to Mars will be the most dangerous exploration/colonizations ever.
...and now thet can all die at HALF the price!
But we've already lost people to space exploration, and yet here we are.
I'd rather not let military minds horn in these projects. Let them focus on Earth, where all our enemies are.
Steve, if someone had been aboard that Dragon, they'd still be safely in orbit. Do you dispute that?
"SpaceX said the satellite was "successfully deployed" — but Orbcomm acknowledged in a statement today that the satellite was deployed into the wrong orbit, due to the engine anomaly."
Soooooo our new benefit of not using NASA is: If something goes wrong we don't have to tell the truth!! We can just throw some corporate B.S. at the public at will! No accountability here!!!!!! ...why does that sound familiar? hummmmm.
You're right. Well, except for the fact that they DID tell the truth, just now. But I'm sure they knew right away and just wanted to make the mission seem like a complete success rather than a partial one. Bastards!
It's a real shame that this is getting out of the hands of the government, since governments never lie, try to hide or spin their failures, and are always honest when their efforts have only ambiguous success.
go for it SpaceX... wish there were more companies that had titanium balls like you!
Why not? The Chinese are damn good with skyrockets at new years.
Romney is going to "outsource" it all to china. The Mormons want to get back to their home world, I say we help them!!
@Alan Boyle. Space exploration is defined by innovation and learning from past failures and successes. The fact that the Dragon ship made it to orbit despite an engine failure says a lot about the progress SpaceX has made. NO NEED to panic.
This man is not a scientist, if he fails to recognize empirical data from science expirements that started before Aristoles' rudementary beginning of scientific research to obtain the meaning of life. I admire his dogmatic belief in a unproven religious deity that has no basic empirical data to support it's existence. But this man's religious beliefs are used to circumnavigate the scientific laws of nature and our countries educations system, whats worse is his bragging about his treasonous behavior to the uneducated members of his political party's members to obtain corrupted political campaign donations. What is the cost to the progress of mankind's future when the ignorant sets himself up as a scientific leader talking to the uneducated for political gains? When political conspiracy and the political supporters that vote using educational bias is what is sick about our protected constitutional free speech of political idiots. Our grand-children are the humans that are going to pay the price for this illegal political pandering that creates chaos.
when you think about it...what 12 flights or something like that for $1.2 billion..heck if these are a success FedEx may want a piece of the SpaceX pie..delivery service to the ISS! ..who knows even the USPS with Priorty Mail to the ISS might even help solve their lack of a business plan (or not)!...somebody will probably pay a lot to have their name on the delivery capsule!
More space junk for profit orbiting earth huh ? If the malfunction had happened to nasa there wouldnt be any capsule....
I always said the more rocket engines the marrier: gotta at least give them that, one mark for spaceX and nasa -1.
All this for 10 billion a trip!
Where did you get that number? The government isn't paying SpaceX that much for ALL the trips, and there are 12 scheduled.
Looked like a backfire. No problem.
Amazing; nothing like the Russian debacles which wasted at least five satellites over the last two years.
The redundancies built into the Dragon's software and the hardware allowed the successful completion of the mission.
Better yet, they were transparent about the event, and will share what they learn from further analysis.
Wow...wouldn't it be nice if politics was like that?
Wow Steve, you really sound like you are talking about... Although I don't see you in the halls so I'm guessing you only know half the story. The other half is assumed.. Nice try though
"It's a tribute to Musk's design"
WOW. What an insult to all the brilliant engineers who bust their asses to do the actual design work. "Chief Designer" is a vanity title--"Chief Supervisor" at best.
So what is NASA (US Taxpayers) doing paying billionaires to do their job? I free enterprise worked so good wouldn't they make enough to pay the freight themselves??
It's called privitization, it has a very long and colorful history in government services.
You see, when government realizes that they're spending ten to a hundred times more than they should to complete a task to a dubious level of quality, sometimes they open their eyes and realize there are companies out there that can do that job better for less money.
Yeah, right, paying $151,000 a pound is so much better than the $8,430 a pound NASA was paying Boeing for the Shuttle to deliver cargo to ISS.
John, My calculation comes out to be $10,139/pound Using Falcon 9 payload vs $18,442/pound for Space Shuttle. This is based on public available data from wikipedia. Where did you get the half-off figure from?
Cost per flight for NASA using Space Shuttle is $450 millions compared to $133 million and change with Falcon 9. Just to put things into perspective. I'd say it is a lot more cost effective measure to use SpaceX than keep the Space Shuttle fleet running (as much as I like them myself). Even the late Neil Armstrong has to come to agreement that SpaceX was doing a fine job in the end, despite his earlier insistence to keep the shuttle fleet running.
I'd say the current administration (NASA) is doing a fine job guiding the private space flight effort.
NASA is paying SpaceX $1.6 billion for 12 flights. That boils down to $133 million and change per flight. According to news reports, SpaceX is delivering 883 pounds of cargo to ISS on this flight. That's $151,000 per pound. Now do a similar calculation for the Shuttle at $450 million and 53,000 pounds which comes out to $8,430 per pound. Shuttle was 18 times cheaper. $133 million could buy 2 Russian Soyuz flights. Soyuz is man rated and has over 1700 successful launches to its credit. That's a far more substantial record than SpaceX, who has yet to have a completely successful flight.
SpaceX needs to bring its actual charges to NASA down into the $40-$50 million per flight area while bringing its cargo delivery up toward its claimed 29,000 pound maximum in order to approach providing a cost savings to the taxpayer. To date that's just empty rhetoric. Based on actual performance, SpaceX is the most expensive way to get a pound of cargo to ISS.
Failures and anomolies now are great. Learn from them. Overall they will improve SpaceX's future products.
If we did not have the Apollo 1 fire on the ground, I don't believe we would have ever made it to the moon and back safely as many times as we did. Had such an event occured during a mission, we would never know what went wrong. Being able to reverse engineer what went wrong and make corrections is essential, as in this case.
It's a machine with thousands of parts, many under high temperatures and pressures, not to mention the vibration. Even the best design is going to have a problem sometimes. The fact that it was able to continue on is a testament to the quality of engineering. That's what we need in this post-Shuttle era, reliable launch vehicles.
Every one of those thousands of parts is a point of failure. Fewer parts would reduce the chances of failure. That's why the military depends on good old simple and reliable solid fuel missiles.
Space X is doing a great job; they are going where no private company has ever gone, and returning home safely. I'm proud of them and look forward to their ongoing missions. Keep up the good work, Elan. My family needed this after the retirement of the shuttles; it was something that we all took an interest in and looked forward to. Space...the final frontier. Go Space X and God speed.
We were never built to be in space, so each and every launch is a test of our technical know-how. Maybe one of these days we won't need rockets, and just use newly developed anti gravity as a way to traverse the cosmos. But for now each and every launch is a gamble. Good luck SpaceX and all the other space launch companies. Cross all the T's, and dot all the I's.