SpaceX launch friday June 4

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

SpaceX launch friday June 4

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

SpaceX Falcon 9 after a couple tries made it to orbit at close to noon PST-congratulations for SpaceX.

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Friday 4th of June 2010 07:02:33 PM

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

[ ...The only other aspect of flight that did not go quite as planned was the hoped-for recovery of the first stage, which was to descend by parachute into the water. The feedback weve gotten thus far is that the stage broke up on re-entry, Mr. Musk said. ] link

Have to admit SpaceX has a viable launch system and I wish them the best my only concern is THE GAP between shut down of shuttle and it's domestic launch system replacement. I saw the launch via SpaceX video feed quite impressive but the feed did cut way to second stage.

Hey, that's fine with me you're allowed some mistakes on tests but at some point you have take some knocks and let the feed play in real time. NASA has always been up front about that no matter how ugly it got everyone got to witness.

I think John on this board has said before, building RLV into a system is hard work.
95% of the test went OK they just need to demo RLV on merlin engines mod. If not then the system has to be classified as a EELV. I don't know if that's important for them just yet.
I would think it is important since it's a sellable feature for this launch system.

GoogleNaut · Guru

I think primarily the main purpose for recovery at this stage is DATA. They wanted to tear down the engines and see how they were wearing inside. Eventually the goal is for reuse, but I think they primarily wanted the thing back so they could see the system after it functioned.

And SpaceX is nothing if not persistant. They have had a very good first start--Bravo! to them, they deserve their Kudos. They are maiking substantial progress.

Reusability will come in time. I have faith.

John · Senior Member

I was on vacation when the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch success occurred. Of course that second stage spin might be a problem. SpaceX is now at a 50% launch success rate!

Too bad about the first-stage breakup. What Googlenaut said is exactly what Gwynne Shotwell said in response to my e-mailed question on the Space Show. We can be too critical here given that just getting payloads into orbit reliably is still a major goal for SpaceX.

It would still be valuable to just retrieve the engines and turbo pumps in undamaged state. But, it is too early to say if the core idea of recoverying and reusing liquid fueled stages is practical.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

I say call a pig a pig. If you can't recover the recoverable crap you send into space "...we have a problem, Houston." that goes for JAXA and SpaceX.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

I kinda think Senator Nelson has a SpaceX non-media hype seed of a plan here:
The "walk before you run" on CCDR.

I'm gonna have to agree with Nelson here I thought I'd ever agree with anything he has done as a politico. I guess when you're up against the wall as NASA is you find yourself with strange bed fellows.

It's kinda funny how Nelson has had to shift from a straight Uber gov't run space program spokes guy to allowing some commercial venture. But that said, he's still had to scramble to adjust to the commercialists gain in influence in the muted environment the U.S. Space program finds itself in.

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Tuesday 15th of June 2010 07:26:55 PM

John · Senior Member

I seem to me that he is pushing to save and increase the role of an Orion-like vehicle which Obama characterized as just a crew rescue vehicle. The other issue is a much firmer plan for a heavy lift vehicle. The question is can this new HLV be build within an affordable budget? It certainly seem that it will be more expensive than the Ares I.

I still think that regardless of the success of the first Falcon 9 launch, SpaceX would be best to focus on the commercial cargo mission until they build up a little more of a record.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Like I said on the space show last night. Without a doubt there are deep financial faults @ NASA and the space industry. You have to look at the reality of the GAP. My take is the Nelson compromise.

I'm not against SpaceX or other commercial outfits I do like the "walk before you run" on CCDR component. And I agree with Mark. HVL is the future market in space the bigger the payload the better rather than the costly dribble effect of 'launch lift lite'.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

[ This period of uncertainty still leaves the stark choice should the U.S. pause the construction of a new heavy lift launch vehicle for the foreseeable future?

The balance of the evidence suggests "no" is the appropriate answer.
Answering no does not mean the R&D initiative recommended by the President should be put aside either. The two are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, their goals are mutually reinforcing.

An active development programs offers a ready home for the maturation and use of the research and innovation that emerges from the R&D investments. Similarly, an ongoing development program offers focus and priority to the near-term elements of the R&D program. Maintaining an active program obviously sustains the workforce and industrial base, and ensures the preservation of critical experiential knowledge in government and industry.
It also precludes the atrophy of infrastructure and facilities.
Any heavy lift program will have to deal with obvious constraints.
Available funds will be limited.

President Obama is set to grow the NASA budget, but his budget does not include this kind of initiative. Cuts to existing programs, reallocations from new initiatives, or new funds will have to be found to accommodate it. Absent a reversal of priorities by the administration or robust support from the June 2010 Congress, limited resources will be available. Similarly, without a destination, any program will have to exhibit flexibility and adaptability, and capable of operating efficiently under low launch rate conditions. Those characteristics will place a premium on design efficiency as well as cost effectiveness.

Those are serious risks, but the end result offers multiple options for the space program. On the one hand, it maintains a focus on the next generation by preserving the investments in new knowledge and innovative capacity. On the other, it preserves the practical skills and adaptability needed to engineer, build, and test operable launch vehicles and spacecraft. ]

[link]

http://www.marshall.org/index.php

The above shows much more maturity than any proposal thus far on how to move the U.S. Space program toward positive engagement rather than hanging the space program on 'CEOs wearing Rolex watches' and Red Bull corporate hype scenarios.