Slashdot Log In
New Photos of SpaceX's Falcon 9 Assembly
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:25 AM
from the this-is-sorta-like-lame-porn dept.
from the this-is-sorta-like-lame-porn dept.
RobGoldsmith writes "New images are now available of SpaceX's Falcon 9 being assembled. The images are accompanied with a small update from SpaceX. If there are no unexpected delays, it's possible Falcon 9 will be completely integrated by the end of the year. This update shows real flight hardware and really brings the rocket alive. View images of the Falcon 9 nearing completion now!"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
by the end of the year? (Score:5, Insightful)
as in the end of 2009? or tomorrow? Or somewhere in between, like the Chinese new year or Rosh Hashanah?
Re:by the end of the year? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it was posted in the SpaceX website on Dec 29.. It took a day to get to the spacefellowship, then another day to get to Slashdot.. so I'm surprised it isn't 2009 already.
The Power of Capitalism (Score:2, Insightful)
This really shows the power of capitalism in this time of government failing. Yes, although the Congress and administration would like you to believe that the current "crisis" is a result of greed, the bottom line is that the money had to come from someplace, and it came from them. Anyway, by looking at Scaled Composites and SpaceX and seeing what they can do when freed from the binders of government "fairness" (corruption, really, since nothing is truely fair) has simply been fascinating. Space flight i
The power of government... (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time free enterprise puts a man on the moon, you let me know.
If you capitalists hadn't have f--- up with your stupid lending decisions and dumb investments, there wouldn't be a government bailout now, would there? There was no need for government to momentarily take control of everything, until the people that previously controlled things utterly screwed up.
Parent
(Capitalism vs. Government debate) == airboxing (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got a bit of news for you, sport. Google for "Federal Reserve", and try to figure out what effect they've had when they made an unlimited amount of credit available at an interest rate below the inflation rate.
Capitalism didn't get us into this mess. We were regulated into it, just like we were in 1929.
-jcr
Re:The power of government... (Score:5, Insightful)
the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with predatory lending practices (which had been going on in the credit industry long before the mortgage crisis). and for the most part, the investment banking industry has been self-regulated--which is an inherent conflict of interest.
do a little research into the history of industry regulations in the U.S., and you'll see exactly why these regulations are necessary. anyone who thinks a laissez-faire free market economy is the solution to all the world's problems is clearly ignorant of our past and needs a reality check.
despite what many libertarians seem to believe, greed does not inherently promote public welfare or ethical/responsible behavior. the truth is quite the opposite, which is historically why regulations have been legislated in the first place.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with predatory lending practices
Guess again.
No matter how slipshod a mortgage lender is, it's the endless supply of credit from the Fed that makes it possible for him to hand out those loans. In a free market for credit, the more loans are made, the less money is available for lending, and the interest rates go up.
anyone who thinks a laissez-faire free market economy is the solution to all the world's problems is clearly ignorant of our past and needs a reality check
Re:The power of government... (Score:4, Interesting)
despite what many libertarians seem to believe, greed does not inherently promote public welfare or ethical/responsible behavior.
What a bizarre strawman you've built there. I don't know any libertarian who's made any claim to that effect. What we do claim, is that in a free market with the rule of law, the way to prosper is to offer what people want to buy. Doing business ethically is conducive to getting repeat business. People who fuck over their customers will suffer damage to their reputation, and their business will suffer as a result.
-jcr
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Which must be why the government forced banks that didn't want or need bailouts to take them. Or don't you remember that part?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next time free enterprise puts a man on the moon, you let me know.
Part of the reason it hasn't happened yet is that there's nothing to be gained from putting another man on the moon right now. Most of the scientifically valuable data either has been gathered already or can be gathered by remote-controlled probes; and other uses for the moon (mining, colonization) are economically or technically infeasible right now.
Governments, on the other hand, are mostly free from such constraints. They can (for example) spend fantastic amounts of taxpayer money to send men to the Mo
IS free enterprise really less expensive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the benefits of sending a man to the Moon exceeded the costs, free enterprise would have done so, and more cheaply than NASA ever could.
I think it is time that we challenge some basic assertions thrown around here.
I really have to dispute the idea that free enterprise is inherently less expensive than the government. Innately, the government has enormous economies of scale, and, the ability to offer its workers additional power in addition to economic compensation.
While it may have been fashionable in
Re:The Power of Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
All that NASA is good at doing these days is burning money.
Deary me - isn't that a little unfair? The only thing they can do is burn money? You don't see any value at all in the various Mars missions, the fascinating output of Cassini-Huygens, or SOHO, or...? And so on.
Check out the NASA Current Missions [nasa.gov] for a bit of an overview of some of the amazing work that NASA are doing.
Whilst I don't disagree with your main point that small, nimble, commercial outfits can often work smarter and quicker than monolithic government departments, I don't think it's fair cast NASA as nothing but a bottomless sinkhole for cash.
It might also be worth considering how many of those current projects would never even get to the drawing board stage if the only space enterprises we had were entirely commercial.
Parent
Pork barrell... (Score:2)
Spacex is kind of an oddity and certainly inspiring but lets not get so inspired that we begin to believe all private sector ventures have the public good at heart.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, although the Congress and administration would like you to believe that the current "crisis" is a result of greed, the bottom line is that the money had to come from someplace, and it came from them.
Yes, in a way it did come from the government -- it's called deregulation. IOW, "freer" free enterprise. Since the bad boys in the banks didn't have Big Brother looking over their shoulder, they were free to do very risky things -- bordering on outright fraud -- with other people's money. That's what caused the bailout, that's what caused the economic collapse. Don't just take my word for it -- read what's been coming out of the mouths of economists.
Look at this project in comparison to "Orion". A small team vs. thousands. A few designers vs. hundreds of engineers using bulky project management. It goes to show that you really only need project management to do something the first time (IE, not knowing where the major failing points will be). After that, you need something lightweight and agile so that you aren't throwing away the experience of your people by second guessing them until they are unable to make quick decisions.
You can't compare the two. Orion's eventual goal is go
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, the 50 years of accumulated NASA research and experience has been completely useless to SpaceX, an organization that has accomplished everything so far by starting from Newtonian first principles.
I mean, think about it. "Delete it entirely and create a new space agency" - so, where shall we get experienced scientists and engineers to man this agency? And, where shall we find contractors to build everything this agency designs? Hey, this is all looking kinda familiar...
Re:The Power of Capitalism (Score:4, Funny)
I knew clicking on these thread it would be full of libertarians mentally wanking themselves off.
The "power" of capitalism is what caused the current financial crisis, not teh evil government. Banking institutions collapsed after regulations were removed, not whilst they were in place. To go from that to claiming that a 50-years-behind corporate spaceflight program (that is hardly capitalist anyway as it is driven largely by Musk's cash and optimism, not genuine returns) shows a lack of grasp of reality.
Oh, and never forget that his only real customer is the government. Its practically socialism!
Retard. Their "small team" and "quick decisions" are what caused them to blow up the first 3 rockets they launch with hilariously simple mistakes. Your beloved capitalist market tends to interpret redundancy and quality control as waste and bureaucracy, when in fact they are necessary for space flight.
Thanks, but I'd rather take facts over the uninformed ranting of a teenage Ayn Rand fanboy. The facts are, SpaceX have a 75% failure rate and NASA have been putting people into space for decades with relatively few mistakes.
If you actually approached some kind of understanding of the subject and weren't just trotting out capitalist dogma like a mindless drone, you might know that a lot of the early problems NASA had were due to competition between contractors and insufficient (government, gasp!) management of them. Sorry if the facts interrupt your little
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The risk was accumulating (which is why the representatives from the administration are seen in congressional hearings, in front of Franks, telling him there's a serious problem looming). The only thing that delayed the results was the unusually long period of time that property values continued to go up on the market. When that stopped, as it always does, the empty loan values - the ones backed up by vague governme
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, as has been mentioned by other posters here, SpaceX (like all the other companies in the industry) has only been able to accomplish so much in such a short amount of time because they have had 50+ years of government funded rocket/space reasearch at their disposal (not just NASA or US reasearch, but also German reasearch funded during WWII as well as Russian research released after the end of the Cold War). Nothing ever stopped private companies from developing spacecraft. The reason they didn'
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't agree with you more, however I would like to point out the reasons why the bureaucracies exist and why we pay so much more on government programs than private ones. Having worked in both sectors I understand what's going on and the advantages and disadvantages on both sides.
The reason government programs are so costly is accountability. Unlike private organizations, government institutions are nothing more than organizational structures. Therefore their setup must assume minimal compe
Re: (Score:2)
"This really shows the power of capitalism in this time of government failing."
It is capitalism that is failing.
here's a spec. sheet (Score:4, Informative)
Better Link (Score:4, Informative)
The offical site and news: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php [spacex.com] It says exactly what the article links to, just a bit more offical ;)
I know a lot of people never thought SpaceX would get this far. I watched the first three Falcon1's explode like everyone else before this last successful launch in Sept (even though it had no real payload). I'm hopeful their Falcon9 starts out successful.
NASA isn't that bad. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"75% failure" isn't a very enlightening statistic. If that's the rate of failure over their entire development program, and they've been steadily improving then it's rather better than NASA did over the same amount of time when they started.
-jcr
Re: (Score:2)
It changed the day you could go to the local airport and catch a flight to London.
I'd rather go to the Greek Islands. Maybe even live there, drinking coffee, eating souvlaki, pouring retsina down the drain and sampling their myriad forms of Ouzo. Although I appreciate Rembetika from a distance, I'd be listening to Bonzo Dog instead while watching Falcon 9 pass overhead.
mammy (Score:4, Funny)
whats a "cockblock" tag mean?
Daaaamn (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, that's what she said!
Oh... wait... Sir Lewk...?
Move the Cabana! (Score:2)
Somebody might want to tell them to move the cabana next time. It isn't rocket science...oh wait...it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY-lyoPP3go [youtube.com]
(little cabana too close to launch site gets blown away)
Still no decent pics of the interesting bits (Score:2)
neither in TFA nor on SpaceX's own site are there any pictures of the 9-engine cluster, just loads of boring photos of large cylinders.
It looks like (Score:2)
a giant engorged penis without testicles except it's white.
Disclaimer: I'm not a non-rocket scientist.
Re:first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yay, newly-created organization which hasn't accumulated a work-impeding bureaucracy.
SpaceX is doing great work. Let's hope they don't become another bloated military-industrial dependency anytime soon.
-jcr
Parent
Let's see these guys launch something first (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so quick to give them accolades until they accomplish something. Like, let's see Falcon 9 actually get off the pad first without blowing up.
Re:Let's see these guys launch something first (Score:5, Informative)
They've already put the Falcon 1 into orbit. I'd say that's an accomplishment.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but the Falcon 2 through Falcon 8 all blew up.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, there was only a Falcon 1 and a Falcon 9...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
just thought I'd add that fyi, in case you didn't count it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd have to agree. Besides getting to orbit, they've also built an extremely impressive in-house fabrication capability. Aerospace isn't my field, but if it was, I'd love to work there.
-jcr
Re:Let's see these guys launch something first (Score:5, Funny)
let's see Falcon 9 actually get off the pad first without blowing up.
Hell, I'd pay to see either option.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
> Yay, newly-created organization which hasn't accumulated a ... yet!
> work-impeding bureaucracy.
Given a little time I'm sure it will. ;o)
Re: (Score:2)
What I find sad is the fact that lots of websites still are using machine-generated URLs instead of readable ones.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this [slashdot.org]? Of course it's going to be machine generated. It's a link to a record in a database.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? That record points to a text that has a title, doesn't it?
I'd rather see http://science.slashdot.org/new_photos_of_spacex_falcon_9_assembly/ [slashdot.org]
Not to mention that having the backend language in the URL itself is also a bad thing.