SpaceX Successfully Launches Falcon 9 Rocket 190
leetrout writes "SpaceX has successfully launched a two-stage rocket, the Falcon 9, into Earth orbit from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. 'Liftoff came after hours of delay, sparked initially by launchpad telemetry problems, then by a sailboat that strayed into a restricted area of the launch range. The day's first countdown was aborted at virtually the last second, due to a problem with the engine parameters, but the launch software was adjusted and a second countdown went all the way to the end.'"
Update: 06/04 20:16 GMT by S : Reader mrcaseyj points out Spaceflight Now's coverage, which includes a number of pictures from the launch.
Re:Most important launch in decades (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Most important launch in decades (Score:5, Informative)
The cork is for protection during reentry. From the Spacex updates page:
Re:Video? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cool (Score:2, Informative)
They have several demonstration flights this year, but the first "official" CRS cargo carrying flight will be in 2011 if all goes well. That's been the plan for a while, and I should know, because part of my job is to stuff it with stuff.
(I say "official" because there is talk about carrying a few brave payloads on the demonstration flights, but that isn't part of the contract.)
Re:Most important launch in decades (Score:5, Informative)
Also on the Spacex updates page you can see the parachutes mounted in the interstage, implying that the entire first stage will be parachuted down. I would think the engine cluster would sink without the fuel tanks for buoyancy.
Re:Cool (Score:4, Informative)
They have a capsule tech called Dragon that can hold 7 crew. They actually had a dummy Dragon capsule at the top of the Falcon 9 launched today. I think the life support stuff is still a ways off, but they should be capable of launching crewed missions a few years into the future.
Utterly useless cheering (Score:2, Informative)
(maybe the NASA cuts won't eviscerate spaceflight after all)
Re:Most important launch in decades (Score:5, Informative)
Look at that thing that's attached to your keyboard and mouse. The computer. The impetus for it's development was space. ICBMs can't fly in the atmosphere - they go into space. The little computers in your car that do everything from running the engine to your mp3 player? An offshoot. The ceramics that make the light turbines possible? Ditto. Better methods to monitor patients? Better ways to test materials? Better ways to model materials?
The space race did three things
And this is all in addition to the benefit of now being able to say: Nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure! [google.com]
Re:Most important launch in decades (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Most important launch in decades (Score:3, Informative)
But most of the cost of solid rocket motors is the fuel, so making them reusable doesn't save much on launch costs.
From what I remember, NASA would probably save money if they stopped recovering the SRBs and just built new ones each time. They're basically just big metal tubes which require a lot of refurbishing before they're ready to fly again, so there's a substantial cost to reusing them.
Re:Cool. (Score:5, Informative)
Huh?
No one wants to killed manned NASA flights, just the boondoggle that is their latest vehicle project. It only serves to keep shuttle makers in business.
Re:Most important launch in decades (Score:5, Informative)
See this page [nasa.gov] for pictures of NASA ships doing the impossible: towing recovered solid rocket boosters back to Kennedy Space Center.
Re:Odd-looking roll (Score:3, Informative)
Considering how well they hit their orbit, and that they hit it early (engine appeared to cut-off before the official time), it had to be an on-axis roll. Otherwise they would have been wasting their thrust and would have taken longer to achieve the desired orbit.
I'd guess that it was something expected but not necessarily on purpose.
Re:Cool. (Score:5, Informative)
The article says SpaceX got $278 million from NASA to develop the rocket. Apparently we spent $1.500 billion on Ares in FY10 alone [parabolicarc.com], and spent $445 million [cnet.com] on a single sub-orbital test flight for Ares in '09.
Re:Odd-looking roll (Score:5, Informative)
From Elon Musk's press telecon, as transcribed by flatoday.net:
"We achieved a "near bulls-eye" on the orbit. There was a little more roll than was expected. It didn't affect the mission. It is something to be investigated and refined. We're very happy with the second stage performance."
This isn't a spin-stabilized spacecraft, so I'd call what I saw more than just a "little roll"... still, damned impressive that the launcher can make an orbital bullseye while having that much uncontrolled spin.
Re:Utterly useless cheering (Score:4, Informative)
What cuts? I thought Obama increased NASA's budget? Did I miss something?