we have lift off Falcon 9

[dragon]

Didn't see a post already.

A new era in space exploration dawned Tuesday as a slender rocket powered into the dark Florida sky before sunrise, carrying the first private spacecraft bound for the International Space Station.

"We're now back on the brink of a new future, a future that embraces the innovation the private sector brings to the table," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "The significance of this day cannot be overstated."

The unmanned SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket blasted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida at 3:44 a.m., carrying 1,300 pounds of food, clothing and scientific experiments on a demonstration mission to gauge the company's ability to safely and efficiently deliver supplies to astronauts staffing the orbiting station.

Opinion: Private space travel -- A new era begins?

If successful, the test could open the door to a wave of commercial exploitation of space.



CNN Explains: Commercial space flight

Why SpaceX launch is important

SpaceX makes history Tuesday's launch marks the culmination of six years of preparation to bring commercial flights to the space station following the retirement of NASA's space shuttle fleet last year. It's backed by entrepreneur Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal.

"Every bit of adrenaline in my body released at that moment," Musk said of the launch in a statement released by NASA. "People were really giving it their all. For us, it was like winning the Super Bowl."

The rocket launched without a hitch following a flawless countdown that came three days after a faulty valve on one of the rocket's engines forced a last-second postponement.

At 180 feet tall and 12 feet around, the Falcon 9 rocket is tiny in comparison to the football-field long Saturn V rockets that carried Apollo spacecraft into orbit. It carries the company's Dragon cargo capsule capable of carrying 13,228 pounds of supplies into orbit, the company said.

The capsule is scheduled to perform a series of maneuvers that should bring it within reach of the space station's robotic arm on Friday. If NASA gives the go-ahead, the crew will use the arm to attach the capsule to the station and begin unloading supplies, according to SpaceX.

It will remain attached to the station for two weeks. It will then plummet back into the atmosphere and splash into the Pacific Ocean off the California coast, according to SpaceX.

Read more about the launch on CNN's Light Years blog

The cargo manifest for the trip includes 674 pounds of food, clothing and miscellaneous supplies, 46 pounds of supplies for use in science experiments, 271 pounds of cargo bags for use in future flights and 22 pounds of computer equipment.

It will return with science experiments, hardware and used gear.

The launch is an important step for NASA and the United States, which currently has no means of independently reaching space. NASA relies on the Russian space agency to ferry U.S. astronauts to orbit.

"What's really important is not control, as much as it is the fact that the United States will once again be in the lead, will be providing our own vehicles to take our own astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station," Bolden said. "It's fine to rely on partners, but that's not where the greatest nation in the world wants to be."

White House science adviser John P. Holdren also hailed the launch.

"Every launch into space is a thrilling event, but this one is especially exciting because it represents the potential of a new era in American spaceflight," he said. "Partnering with U.S. companies such as SpaceX to provide cargo and eventually crew service to the International Space Station is a cornerstone of the President's plan for maintaining America's leadership in space."

The first attempt to launch the rocket was halted Saturday when a flight computer detected high pressure in an engine combustion chamber. Workers replaced the valve on Saturday, SpaceX said.

The company plans 11 more flights to the space station.

One of a handful of private companies receiving funds from NASA to develop a space taxi system, SpaceX hopes the experience with the cargo flights will help the company reach its goal of carrying astronauts aboard the Dragon.

The company is developing a heavy-lift rocket with twice the cargo capability of the space shuttle, and also dreams of builidng a spacecraft that could carry a crew to Mars.

link

[Ryan Thunder]

"What's really important is not control, as much as it is the fact that the United States will once again be in the lead, will be providing our own vehicles to take our own astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station," Bolden said. "It's fine to rely on partners, but that's not where the greatest nation in the world wants to be."

I'm not sure what's sadder; that NASA can't build its own vehicles or that they actually think merely privatizing space is equivalent to having their own vehicles.

[PeZook]

Dude, "having the ability to easily contract a vehicle for pennies" is perfectly equivalent to "having your own vehicles".

And NASA is still paying contractors to keep developing the Orion (oh, sorry, it has some new strange acronymic name now ) so that they can do manned space properly.

[Surlethe]

Pragmatically, we may as well privatize space flight now. It needs to be privatized at some point anyway and we don't seem to be making public spending on spaceflight a priority. The private sector will also be a little more robust than the public sector has been, since the party in power won't be able to make symbolic cuts to NASA if there's nothing left to cut.

[PeZook]

There's also a market now for ISS deliveries, and the big initial investments are all done (well, for the first wave, anyways). Developing smallish rocket boosters is pretty cheap nowadays, thanks to all the engineering advancements since the 1960s, and the amount of billionaires with nothing better to do just keeps rising.

It's the PERFECT time to encourage private businesses to get their fingers into space in some other capacity than building hardware for NASA.

[eion]

I'm not sure what's sadder; that NASA can't build its own vehicles or that they actually think merely privatizing space is equivalent to having their own vehicles.

I think North American, Grumman, Douglas, McDonnell, and Boeing would all like to speak to you. NASA doesn't build spacecraft, just like the Army doesn't build tanks. They issue a design proposal, provide ongoing input to the contractors, and buy the product, but they don't build it. SpaceX is doing the exact same thing, except they have plans to, at some point, use the spacecraft they designed for NASA for commercial purposes.

This is awesome, and I hope it leads to further commercial efforts in space, as well as the Red Dragon proposed Mars mission.

[Lord Revan]

correct me if I'm wrong but all missions so far seriously planned (as in have probable launch date set) are unmanned right?

While this is indeed great progress. I wouldn't speculate too far until they've gotten a manned spacecraft up and more importantly back down with the crew alive. once private contractors have done that (even if NASA is supplying the crew) then we speculate about Mars flights and such.

[ChaserGrey]

eion, I would take slight issue with your statement. Technically it's true that NASA specifies and contractors make, like a number of other government agencies, but NASA has typically done much, much more of the design process than, say, the military does. For examples see the Apollo CSM, where a number of companies submitted designs and NASA rejected them all in favor of its own, and the Space Shuttle. Waaay back when CEV got started (anyone remember that far?), it was considered a bold new move for NASA to solicit proposals, downselect to two teams, evaluate prototypes from both, and make a final decision- which is the normal course of business for a number of other places.

Commercial crew has a lot of potential because it takes things a step forward- NASA doesn't pick a "winner", they just buy flights from whoever can deliver to the station. [Effectively this is what they're doing now, it's just that the Russians are the only vendors on the market] The hope is that this will trigger price and quality competition among contractors and make human spaceflight a lot more accessible. It could all go wrong, but frankly it's the first major development I can remember that seems to offer that as a possibility. Sure wasn't going to happen with Ares I/Orion.

Edit for Lord Revan: The first stage of the contract is for unmanned supply delivery, but assuming that happens NASA will then open up bidding for passenger service to the ISS. I know that Dragon in particular was designed from the ground up as a manned spacecraft capable of unmanned operation.

[phongn]

eion, I would take slight issue with your statement. Technically it's true that NASA specifies and contractors make, like a number of other government agencies, but NASA has typically done much, much more of the design process than, say, the military does. For examples see the Apollo CSM, where a number of companies submitted designs and NASA rejected them all in favor of its own, and the Space Shuttle.

Uh, the STS orbiter was designed by Rockwell.

Waaay back when CEV got started (anyone remember that far?), it was considered a bold new move for NASA to solicit proposals, downselect to two teams, evaluate prototypes from both, and make a final decision- which is the normal course of business for a number of other places.

The only difference there is that the down-select happened later; for example STS had a wealth of design alternatives.

[ChaserGrey]

Yes, but the major design decisions (such as wing size, use of SRBs and ET, and so on) were made by NASA. When the Air Force was specifying its Lightweight Fighter at the same time, they didn't tell competitors to use a ventral air intake- General Dynamics made that decision on what became the F-16. NASA tended to do a lot more of the design themselves- or if you prefer, tended to write much more detailed specifications for the stuff they bought.

I may have overstated the difference a bit, it was one of degree rather than kind. No question, though, that Commercial Crew is something new.

[Sarevok]

The ISS is going to be abandoned after 2016 last I heard. What are SpaceX going to do after that ? They can launch satelites but that's something people have already been doing for years. Not seeing how they will be any better than the other people doing commercial launches who just don't get the PR SpaceX does in media.

[Agent Sorchus]

Looking at wiki, the ISS is supposed to continue until 2020 or 2028. See http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/11station/.

correct me if I'm wrong but all missions so far seriously planned (as in have probable launch date set) are unmanned right?

While this is indeed great progress. I wouldn't speculate too far until they've gotten a manned spacecraft up and more importantly back down with the crew alive. once private contractors have done that (even if NASA is supplying the crew) then we speculate about Mars flights and such.

Also of note is that the Red Dragon's first intended mission is an unmanned one wherein it takes a drill to mars to drill a couple meters in to the soil for ice deposits and to test capabilities that would be used on a manned mars mission or as a supply truck to mars in support of a manned mission. As such it doesn't need to be man rated necessarily. (And this is just an easy foot in the door style mission for SpaceX to demonstrate willingness to support real exploration rather than just commercial space profiting.)

[Col. Crackpot]

(And this is just an easy foot in the door style mission for SpaceX to demonstrate willingness to support real exploration rather than just commercial space profiting.)

You do realize that the development of profitable endeavors outside the bounds of Earth is the one sure way to guarantee space exploration, right? That statement of yours sounded rather... naive.

[Simon_Jester]

"What's really important is not control, as much as it is the fact that the United States will once again be in the lead, will be providing our own vehicles to take our own astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station," Bolden said. "It's fine to rely on partners, but that's not where the greatest nation in the world wants to be."

I'm not sure what's sadder; that NASA can't build its own vehicles or that they actually think merely privatizing space is equivalent to having their own vehicles.

NASA did not build its own Atlas or Titan boosters. It did not own the facilities to build its own Saturn rockets or space shuttles.

If you can just buy a rocket off an assembly line, that really is good enough. There's no fundamental difference here between the Falcon rocket series and, say, the Titans and Deltas.

correct me if I'm wrong but all missions so far seriously planned (as in have probable launch date set) are unmanned right?

Physically, you could probably man-rate Falcon 9 and put a capsule on it- but not a very big capsule, so there's no good place for a manned mission to go except ferrying astronauts a few at a time up to the ISS, which is a limited demand in return for the high cost of man-rating a rocket booster.

Yes, but the major design decisions (such as wing size, use of SRBs and ET, and so on) were made by NASA. When the Air Force was specifying its Lightweight Fighter at the same time, they didn't tell competitors to use a ventral air intake- General Dynamics made that decision on what became the F-16. NASA tended to do a lot more of the design themselves- or if you prefer, tended to write much more detailed specifications for the stuff they bought.

I may have overstated the difference a bit, it was one of degree rather than kind. No question, though, that Commercial Crew is something new.

There are good reasons why NASA made a lot of specifications- NASA uses its hardware for very specific things.

A Lightweight Fighter with dorsal or side-mounted air intakes would still work. A space shuttle with tiny wings... well, imagine the Air Force is saying "we need to launch a shuttle from Vandenberg in a polar orbit over the USSR, make one pass to do XYZ, and land at Vandenburg. It is urgent, classified Top Secret code phrase HOLY SHIT."

And NASA has to say "Sorry, but our contractor didn't think that was an important capability, so they didn't build the wings on the shuttle big enough to do that."

Air Force "Fuuuuu..."

Also, NASA keeps a larger stable of in-house designers than the Air Force: the Air Force didn't try to design its own jets and doesn't maintain the capability to do so, while NASA does, not least because NASA needs to be able to rely on getting hardware that does what it needs, even if the contractors aren't so sure that's important.

[Sea Skimmer]

Also just the little issue that if a plane breaks, the pilot can eject. If a manned spacecraft breaks, you have a much bigger problem and its far more complicated then a jet fighter from the get go. Its not like the military is a shining example of cost/capability control either.

[MKSheppard]

It did not own the facilities to build its own Saturn rockets or space shuttles.

Incorrect. The US Government owned Michoud (S-IB/S-IC factory) and Seal Beach (S-II factory); and Marshall Spaceflight Center actually built the first eight Saturn I first stages itself, along with the first three S-IC test stages for the Saturn V (S-IC-T, the S-IC-S, and the S-IC-F). They also built the first two S-IC flight stages (S-IC-1 and S-IC-2).

[MKSheppard]

For examples see the Apollo CSM, where a number of companies submitted designs and NASA rejected them all in favor of its own, and the Space Shuttle.

Technically, what happened was that North American went "you know, to hell with designing what we think is the best; we'll design exactly what the customer wants."

So while all the other bidders were doing daring and innovative designs, such as modularized Apollo spacecraft that strongly resembled...Soyuz, North American basically worked out Max Faget's paper designs into a biddable form and won.

The Space Shuttle story is a bit complicated. Grumman came up with a lot of the design of the Shuttle as we know it, like the huge droppable ET, and the sidemounted boosters; but apparently there was a lot of people at NASA HQ who remembered the first LEM acceptance meeting held by Grumman....in an aircraft hangar with no air conditioning.

At least that was Tom Kelly's belief in his memoirs -- that Grumman basically lost the follow-on to Apollo at that moment; because Grumman's entire ethic back then was the "look, we do things really cheap" which endeared them to the US Navy, which to that point had been their primary customer. By contrast, NASA demanded a bit more class; and North American had fully equipped presentation rooms with state of the art audio-visual equipment, etc...

[MrDakka]

At least that was Tom Kelly's belief in his memoirs -- that Grumman basically lost the follow-on to Apollo at that moment; because Grumman's entire ethic back then was the "look, we do things really cheap" which endeared them to the US Navy, which to that point had been their primary customer. By contrast, NASA demanded a bit more class; and North American had fully equipped presentation rooms with state of the art audio-visual equipment, etc...

If that really was the case, then I guess style points really do count.

[someone_else]

The ISS is going to be abandoned after 2016 last I heard. What are SpaceX going to do after that ?

with a bit of fingers crossed, bigelow aerospace should put up his own space hotel somewhere before 2020.

If a manned spacecraft breaks, you have a much bigger problem and its far more complicated then a jet fighter from the get go.

Depends from where it is. A capsule can use an escape tower which is simple as fuck to get clear from a failing rocket, and should be able to get down from Earth orbit even if controls aren't in good shape up since its shape forces it to stay oriented the right way to some extent (lands murderusly off-course though).

If you use capsules, it's not horribly hard to have a (relatively) safe ride without wasting fucktons of mass, with spaceplanes it's a bit more complex.

[Sarevok]

Can't space planes be given ejecting capsules like the F-111 ?

I wonder why they did not do that with the shuttle. The crew compartment looked ok when Challenger blew up, maybe the crew would have lived if it had it's own parachute. When Columbia burned up they were only at 200000 feet, with some heat shields and parachute it is not inconceivable they crew may have gotten down safely.

[PeZook]

An extra heat shield would have been prohibitely costly, greatly extended turnaround time and frankly made the entire historical Shuttle configuration pointless.

[someone_else]

spaceplanes have much more limited mass budgets than a standard rocket.

Both ejectable seats and emergency capsule were examined for shuttle but looked like crap (ejecting at reentry speeds = suicide, reentry capsule = fucktons of payload mass lost and lots more stuff to check each mainteneance cycle = lots more stuff that can go wrong and costs rising) and were not implemented.

Yeah, it's easier to make a safe conventional rocket than a safe spaceplane.

Rocket science. Seriously counterintuitive stuff.

[Sarevok]

Regarding spaceplanes I have been wondering about Skylon and like. SpaceX chose rockets and went far ahead of others who tried unproven concepts. For all it's costs rockets do seem like the best way to get into space given existing technology.

[Scorpion]

Regarding spaceplanes I have been wondering about Skylon and like. SpaceX chose rockets and went far ahead of others who tried unproven concepts. For all it's costs rockets do seem like the best way to get into space given existing technology.

I don't think is so much "the best way", but instead "the most reliable way". The books have all been written on space rocketry, we know how it works because it has been done time and time again, and it cuts on R&D time and money. The other things, well...

[Scorpion]

Physically, you could probably man-rate Falcon 9 and put a capsule on it- but not a very big capsule, so there's no good place for a manned mission to go except ferrying astronauts a few at a time up to the ISS, which is a limited demand in return for the high cost of man-rating a rocket booster.

I keep hearing about man-rating. What's the difference between a man-rated and a non-man-rated rocket? I would guess that man-rated rockets would have a much lower acceleration limit than non-man-rated ones, but what else? What does man-rating involve?