SpaceX Boosts Malaysian Satellite Into Orbit 71
Soychemist writes "On the same day that yet another shuttle launch was postponed, SpaceX successfully carried a Malaysian satellite, RazakSAT, into orbit. This is the second successful launch in a row for Elon Musk's space exploration startup. Later this year the company will launch its larger Falcon 9 rocket, which could be used to carry cargo to the International Space Station. RazakSAT was designed by ATSB and carries a high resolution camera. If it is intact, the satellite will take photographs of Earth that could be used to better manage natural resources."
Adds xp65: "The satellite was separated from the Falcon 1 about 48 minutes after liftoff at 3:35 GMT (11:35 pm EDT). The orbit is 685 km and 9 degrees inclination. Launch was delayed several times due to a faulty helium valve on the ground and bad weather at the launch site at Kwajalein. This was the fifth flight of the Falcon 1 rocket, with the last two flights being succesful. Later this year the inaugural flight of the larger Falcon 9 rocket is planned from Cape Canaveral."
Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I know, its good to make fun of NASA and its shuttle program.
I guess it doesn't take long for the public to remember that the space shuttle carries humans and thus is subject to a completely different set of requirements. Loose a Malaysian satellite - who cares, they are insured (BTW the insurance rate is of course based in part on the success/failure rate).
Not to mention the shuttle is in a completely different payload class, and more importantly, it is used with hundreds of thousands of miles on the air frame.
From the bottom of the article "Now 0-for-3, SpaceXâ(TM)s Elon Musk Vows to Make Orbit". While the shuttle has had its failures, its record is slightly better.
Yes, Soychemist, you are an ass.
Re:Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid (Score:2, Insightful)
NO ONE launches satellites into known lightning storms, and if there had been a storm over Kwaj they would have scrubbed also. In fact, they did have to wait for rain showers to pass.
Re:Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid (Score:3, Insightful)
NO ONE launches satellites into known lightning storms, and if there had been a storm over Kwaj they would have scrubbed also. In fact, they did have to wait for rain showers to pass.
Not to mention the launch scrub followed by a three-month delay [hobbyspace.com] due to the fact that they were worried about the vibration environment of the launch damaging the satellite and decided to do a new engineering analysis.
Which was the right thing to do, of course. If you're not sure, don't launch.
Nevertheless, when NASA delays a launch to do a safety check, everybody complains how incompetent they are. When Space-X delays, everybody praises them for being cautious.
Still: Good job! Keep up the good work!
Re:Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I know, its good to make fun of NASA and its shuttle program.
I guess it doesn't take long for the public to remember that the space shuttle carries humans and thus is subject to a completely different set of requirements. Loose a Malaysian satellite - who cares, they are insured (BTW the insurance rate is of course based in part on the success/failure rate)
You just answered your own question: If a rocket isn't safe enough to carry humans, it's not safe enough to carry a billion-dollar satellite without paying a large fraction of a billion dollars in insurance premiums.
'Human-rating' is mostly bogus: the primary difference between a satellite launcher and a 'human-rated' launcher is that there's no abort system on a satellite launcher so if you're going to lose the payload anyway you might as well just crash and burn. A human-launching system needs to ensure that it will fail nicely so the crew can escape... something with the shuttle, of course, has singularly failed to do.
Lastly, I believe the total development cost of the Space-X launcher is a small fraction of the cost of a single shuttle launch, so they expected a few failures in development.
Re:Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid (Score:3, Insightful)
Nevertheless, when NASA delays a launch to do a safety check, everybody complains how incompetent they are. When Space-X delays, everybody praises them for being cautious.
The difference is that SpaceX's delays have been due to them trying out a totally brand-new rocket design and launch support system. The Space Shuttle, on the other hand, has been around for quite a while, and most of the delays (besides the weather-related ones) are due to the inherent technical finickiness of the Shuttle design. And of course, most of the weather-related delays can be blamed on the fact that it's a ground-based launch system situated in the thunderstorm capital of the US.
SpaceX's launch procedures are designed to be as efficient and timely as possible, with a number of automated safety checks. Heck, even for yesterday's launch it turned out that there was a malfunction in the helium-loading equipment, which was quickly fixed and just resulted in a delay of a few hours. For the Shuttle, I imagine a malfunction like that could easily result in a delay of days.