SpaceX Successfully Tested Draco Thruster

dj writes "The propulsion division of SpaceX has performed another important test. After the test of the Falcon 9's first stage Merlin engines, the smallest engine of the SpaceX family, Draco, has been put to test. During the test, the thruster fired for ten minutes, paused for ten minutes, and then was restarted for an additional minute. The test was performed on a new vacuum test stand built by SpaceX, and put into operation in March 2008 at the SpaceX Test Facility outside McGregor, Texas."

Re:Why?

[Big Hairy Ian]

Given the current roller coaster that is diplomatic relations with Russia do you really want to be reliant on Soyuz? Also the ESA capsule although successfully tested for cargo is still vaporware as far as manned spaceflight is concerned as I believe they haven't decided if they are going to go down that road yet. With the shuttle being retired the Dragon Capsule looks like a good stopgap.

Re:Why?

[mrsquid0]

>SpaceX seem to be doing NASA's job better than NASA these
>days.

Really? How many telescopes does SpaceX have in orbit? How many active probes does SpaceX have orbiting other planet, or on them for that matter? How many satellites has SpaceX put into orbit this year? SpaceX is doing some amazing stuff, but to pretend that they are ahead of NASA is just plain daft.

Re:Why?

[khallow]

So, then..... why are they working on this? As I understand it, their launch system is already lucrative enough as it is. Why go reinventing the wheel?

First, neither Soyuz or ATV are a US solution. Second, neither are a commercial sector solution.

Re:Why?

[david.given]

Choice is always good. Aside from that, SpaceX' stuff is all entirely privately funded and designed themselves, and as such doesn't have the same kind of legal snarls that using governmental technology would have: it is, if you like, a clean room reimplementation of space technology. (They are the only space company to build their launch vehicles, in their own factory, from scratch --- engines, tankage, the lot.)

Also, the Dragon is likely to be (a) cheaper and (b) here on time, when compared to the ESA or Ares capsule (assuming the Ares capsule's not going to be cancelled). And Soyuz, despite being really nice technology, is politically a bit uncomfortable, so it's always worth having a backup.

Re:Why?

[sleeponthemic]

Really? How many telescopes does SpaceX have in orbit? How many active probes does SpaceX have orbiting other planet, or on them for that matter? How many satellites has SpaceX put into orbit this year? SpaceX is doing some amazing stuff, but to pretend that they are ahead of NASA is just plain daft.

You're missing the point (which, for the record was mindlessly obvious). SpaceX, in their area of specialisation (ie propulsion/cargo delivery) are showing a whole lot more progress than NASA. All too easy to purposely misinterpret to get on your soapbox.

Re:Why?

[mrsquid0]

>Why are you comparing SpaceX, approximately 5 years old IIRC,
>to NASA, a defunct agency so bound up in red tape thatÃ(TM)s
>over 40 years old. If you want to compare do it apples to apples,
>not apples to oranges. What did Nasa do in its first 5 years?

Almost all of the Mercury programme occurred during NASA's first five years. The problem with NASA now is not that they are a "defunct agency", but that they are badly underfunded for the mandate that they have been given. Admittedly, the VSE is highly unrealistic, but if that is the path that the US wants to follow then the US needs to be prepared to fund it. Expecting NASA to push the boundaries of manned space flight and then not being willing to put up the funds to do so is a recipe for failure.

Re:Why?

[Muad'Dave]

I don't think NASA of 2008 is ahead of where NASA was in 1963. Sad.

Re:Why?

[soldeed]

Space X was founded in june of 2002. Just six years later, starting from a clean sheet of paper and producing most all of the rocket themselves; structures, engines, avionics, falcon 1 successfully reached orbit. The falcon 9 is being prepared to fly next year, as is the dragon seven crew/cargo spacecraft. Could NASA or any of it's contractors do the same in as short a time? Look how long the Orion spacecraft is taking. Can't beat their prices either, at around 7 million, a ride on a falcon 1 is an excellent bargain! Don't deny their props, Space X is accomplishing astounding feats for such a young company.

Re:Why?

[celtic_hackr]

Well, to be fair to NASA, SpaceX doesn't have to deal with a gargantuan bureaucracy, Congress, and the President in order to get approval to do anything or even get money and then wait for contractors to build something. Also, it should be noted that some of the people of SpaceX come from the very contractors that NASA relies upon, and so have the hands on experience and contacts to make it work.

It's really kind of a DUH conclusion. A small lightweight unencumbered company can out-perform a gigantic bureaucratic behemoth.

Gee, go figure!

Or

Q: Who would have ever guessed?
A: Any sane half-wit or better.

Re:Why?

[meringuoid]

Space X was founded in june of 2002. Just six years later, starting from a clean sheet of paper and producing most all of the rocket themselves; structures, engines, avionics, falcon 1 successfully reached orbit. The falcon 9 is being prepared to fly next year, as is the dragon seven crew/cargo spacecraft. Could NASA or any of it's contractors do the same in as short a time?

NASA was founded in July 1958. John Glenn orbited the Earth in February 1962. Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon in July 1969.