SpaceX's Falcon 9 Appears As UFO In Australia 143
RobHart writes "ABC (the Australian Broadcasting Commission) has reported extensively on a bright spiraling light that was seen in Eastern Australia just before dawn. It has just broadcast a report from an Australian astronomer who has suggested that the light was probably the successful Falcon 9 launch, which would have been over Australia at that time on its launch trajectory."
Update: 06/05 22:20 GMT by T : Setting aside the literal exhaust fumes, reader FleaPlus says, It's "interesting to look at the reactions from those in Congress who control the purse-strings for NASA (one of SpaceX's biggest customers). The successful launch was congratulated by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL and former astronaut) and Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), both praised and criticized by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) due to the successful launch being a year later than previously predicted, and blasted by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) for merely replicating what 'NASA accomplished in 1964,' who added that the company's success 'must not be confused with progress for our nation's human spaceflight program.'"
Oh, those Falcon UFOs! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh, those Falcon UFOs! (Score:5, Funny)
FWIW, I have a substantial blog post with details, including a rant against the ABC story. :) This was definitely the Falcon 9 second stage, despite the UFO guy's protestations: the timing, position, and appearance all match.
Oh sure, says the Bad Astronomer!
Re:Oh, those Falcon UFOs! (Score:4, Funny)
Look, if it's all the same to you, I'll take the transdimensional stargate warp over a measly chemical rocket any day.
But thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Far more likely is that the Falcon 9 second stage hit an alien spacecraft, causing it (the alien spacecraft) to spin and spew gas!
Fools! (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone who watched knows the Falcon 9 was launched in the upwards direction, not the downwards direction needed to reach Australia.
Also, Australian UFOs spiral in the opposite direction to The Vistors who arrive in the northern hemisphere.
DST (Score:3, Informative)
A doubter quoted in the article says "Firstly, the time of the launch was 18.45 GMT, which translates to 4.45am EST, the duration of the flight was 9 minutes 38 seconds - this is a full hour before the reported sightings."
Did he forget that we're on DST right now? He should have looked up the EDT time, not EST.
Re:DST (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... I assumed he was talking about the time when it took off in Florida (I didn't follow it THAT closely, so I wasn't sure if it took off really early or later in the day), although I guess I could have figured it out based on the conversion to GMT.
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, has anyone checked his work? It's always easy to get off by an hour when there's DST involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I did it anyway :)
He seems to be right according to http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/time-zones.htm [greenwichmeantime.com] (I assume that they're on standard time, being on the southern hemisphere and all).
Was the whole flight just under 10 minutes? or did that only account for how long it was being propelled (did it fall for a while?) Or was it actually just something entirely different?
Re:DST (Score:5, Informative)
No, that was boost time.
It will be falling for the next year or so, until the orbit finally decays.
Re: (Score:2)
In Melbourne:
date && date -u
Sun Jun 6 09:12:56 EST 2010
Sat Jun 5 23:12:56 UTC 2010
The east coast of AU is at GMT+10 right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he forget that we're on DST right now? He should have looked up the EDT time, not EST.
We're not on Daylight Savings Time now.
Re: (Score:2)
I am. If you read the thread you'll realize that I (mistakenly) thought he was talking about the American EDT (in the article they should have used AEST to be more specific).
RE:Doug Moffett (Score:2)
You keep using these words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
from UFO Research NSW Oh. That explains it...
Congress is happy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Congress is happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because ultimately this is a big deal, private businesses haven't been able to do this sort of thing nor really was the US government able to without a massive amount of money.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Timothy is such a luddite for turning this into a Red vs. Blue thing. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) also down played SpaceX's accomplishment. All of the politicians downplaying the achievement are just lamely trying to protect their area's piece of NASA's salted pork.
Rep. Kosmas: "The successful test launch of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is a significant step in the development of the commercial space industry. There is no doubt that commercial spaceflight will play an important role in the future of our effort
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah,, don't inject truth, reason, and sanity into this. Can't we just bash one party or the other for the hell of it and leave false impressions to the masses? I mean how are we supposed to get our guy elected if we can't get everyone else to believe the fallacious positions we put the opposition in.
I bet you don't like puppies. Nobody listen to this guy, he doesn't like puppies, or kittens either.
So vote Republican. (Score:2)
So vote Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not surprised that the Republican from Alabama is against SpaceX, seeing how Huntsville is the home of Morton-Thiokol, a major contractor for the solid rocket boosters that were to be used on the canceled program.
Aside from the fact that Senators never notice federal government waste when the money is being spent in their own state, the is very much a red-blue issue since Republicans are currently looking for anything to call a fail on the current administration
Re: (Score:2)
Morton-Thiokol, the same people who, through their negligence (can't call it any different), killed one shuttle crew? Yeah, a great name to associate yourself with, Republican from Alabama.
Re: (Score:2)
Once the Stargate was found and the Asgard gave us all their tech, these sorts of events are no longer impressive.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is interesting is when I hit Republican candidates for office on private commercial spaceflight.... they are all for it until the word "Constellation" comes up and then try to defend that program as if ATK has completely financed the entire development for that project out of their own pocket.
Sometimes I don't really know what is going on, and it seems as though politicians will simply bend in the wind if you start to blow back. We'll see, I guess.
Support for the Constellation program won't survive th
Re:Congress is happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta love the quotes from the wonderfully progressive Republican party folks including this gem from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): "[Shelby congratulated SpaceX on what] 'NASA accomplished in 1964,' [and] added that the company's success 'must not be confused with progress for our nation's human spaceflight."
That's really rich seeing that NASA can't even do what SpaceX has done. Welcome back to 1964, maybe, we SpaceX is now years ahead of the now hopefully defunct Aries I program, despite NASA's extensive experience, which SpaceX is benefiting from. Even more ironic that a Republican senator is unhappy that private enterprise is doing something that a government agency is apparently unable to do. Oh how the Republican party has fallen. They're now caught by their own positions. I mean are they for private enterprise and the free market or not?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean are they for private enterprise and the free market or not?
They're politicians. They don't even get a passing grade in remedial politics if they can't dodge such obvious attempts at consistency and accountability.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Republican party never has been for free markets and never will be. Every single time they win, government still expands by leaps and bounds. It is mostly false rhetoric by leftists trying to prove that free markets don't work. Case in point is the quote from this fine senatorial idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
It is mostly false rhetoric by leftists trying to prove that free markets don't work.
Two points: Free markets don't exist, and what do you mean by "work"? The existing market conditions are working fine if the goal is to make the rich richer.
Re:Congress is happy (Score:5, Informative)
Keith's note: This is hilarious. Ares 1-X was a suborbital mission with a fake second stage, a first stage motor different than the final one, and used borrowed avionics. Falcon 9 flew an operational vehicle first time out of the hanagr and put a payload into orbit at a small fraction of the cost that an Ares would require. Falcon 9 has a better chance of closing the gap than Ares 1 will. Apparently the good senator (her staff that is) are utterly unaware of the fact that Ares 1 will not achieve any of its milestones until after Falcon 9 has already done so. Yet we never hear anything from her about that, do we?
As for Sen Shelby's comments, It would seem that SpaceX is better equipped to do what "NASA accomplished in 1964" than the NASA of 2010 can accomplish - and do so faster - and more cheaply. Ares 1 would cost much more and be ready later than Falcon 9.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course "SpaceX is now years ahead" of the Constellation program. SpaceX started years before the Aries program, used 30 year old technology, and has a much simpler goal: LEO and GEO. They fucking better be years ahead, specially as the Aries program has lost its funding.
I guess you forgot that the Constellation system was supposed to take us back to Luna and then on to Mars and not just the ISS which is the primary target of the Falcon 9 system.
Comparing the Constellation system to the Falcon system is l
Re:Congress is happy (Score:5, Informative)
SpaceX started years before the Aries program, used 30 year old technology
I guess you forgot that the Constellation system was supposed to take us back to Luna and then on to Mars and not just the ISS which is the primary target of the Falcon 9 system.
You are misinformed. The Ares I rocket is just a LEO launcher. It is an extended space shuttle solid rocket booster with an upper stage powered by a single Saturn V motor. The technology in it dates to the mid-1970s or even earlier.
The Ares V is a heavy-lift booster that outclasses anything built. Or it would if they'd actually try building one. It is a STS External Tank with five motors off the Delta IV under it and two STS SRBs attached to it. The upper stage is powered by the same Saturn V derivative motor used on the Ares I.
Both programs started development circa 2005 (SpaceX was only founded in 2002). SpaceX has delivered a working launch vehicle. NASA has launched what was literally a slightly modified SRB out of the Space Shuttle inventory as the Ares I-X, and is unlikely to launch the real thing until 2017. The Ares V hasn't even begun to leave the drawing board.
SpaceX has a working satellite launcher that can be made man-rated. The Constellation program has nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it would if they'd actually try building one.
They would have except for Obama de-funding the program. I guess you forgot about that.
Let's see:
SpaceX has delivered a 1960s era liquid fuel rocket designed for LEO. NASA has delivered a 1970s era test vehicle as part of a program to develop a 2010s era launch system.
SpaceX has an almost working satellite launch vehicle. NASA was developing a system for sending people to Luna and Mars.
Yeah, SpaceX has gotten very far using NASA's old technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, for a fraction of the cost, Space X put a test vehicle in orbit. They will be able to put a man in orbit in a few years time. Ares can't say the same.
Ares is and always will be a vehicle designed primarily to save jobs, not to preform space exploration.
Re: (Score:2)
They would have except for Obama de-funding the program. I guess you forgot about that.
You're kidding, right?
Obama has proposed removing funding for the Constellation Program in the 2011 budget. The budget cuts haven't taken effect and are still being argued over. The reason NASA hasn't built them is that NASA is years behind schedule.
Let's see:
SpaceX has delivered a 1960s era liquid fuel rocket designed for LEO. NASA has delivered a 1970s era test vehicle as part of a program to develop a 2010s era launch system.
SpaceX has an almost working satellite launch vehicle. NASA was developing a system for sending people to Luna and Mars.
In five-ish years, SpaceX designed, built, and flew a prototype two-stage rocket. In five-ish years, NASA put a guidance system on an existing STS SRB, and launched a fake second stage.
And you are still confusing two separate launchers. The Ares I is a LEO launc
Re:Congress is happy (Score:4, Funny)
Comparing the Constellation system to the Falcon system is like comparing an over the road semi-articulated tractor trailer to a day-cab straight truck.
Hooray, a truck analogy. Lemme fix that for you. It's like comparing a fusion-powered antigravity freighter to a day-cab straight truck. The antigravity freighter is much more impressive, but the straight truck actually exists.
Re: (Score:2)
And, the only reason it does not exist is because of Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. The reason it does not exist is because the Ares-I kept running into delays and cost overruns, as well as performance issues that continually forced them to remove capabilites for Orion. The reason it _shouldn't_ exist is that it's a _terrible_ program that, had it been allowed to continue, would quite probably have killed NASA and never gotten us out of LEO anyway. Even the Ares-I would not have been operational during Obama's presidency, even presuming he stays in office until 2016.
I used to be a fan
Re:Congress is happy (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally I'm all for Republican-bashing, but in this case I think it goes to something more primal than Republican luddism.
Whether a congressman approves or disapproves of Space-X has nothing to do with his/her party, beliefs, or political position, and everything to do with, "Do I have a NASA manned spaceflight center in my district?"
Space-X has gotten jeers from Florida, Alabama, and Texas; cheers from just about everywhere else. At least Florida and Texas have a role to play in a privatized spaceflight arena. Alabama, on the other hand, is watching the Marshall Space Flight Center evaporate like a puddle of liquid oxygen, and is going to fight like hell to keep ol' Werner von Braun's playground alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether a congressman approves or disapproves of Space-X has nothing to do with his/her party, beliefs, or political position, and everything to do with, "Do I have a NASA manned spaceflight center in my district?"
The Republican line is that private industry is always better than government organisations. They are happy to see the people's money being given to Lockheed-Martin, Haliburton, Boeing etc. in exchange for regular flight R&D. But when Obama suggests that the provision of space flight R&D should move from a government organisation towards private corporations, then some Republicans start proclaiming that government run organisations achieve better results than private industry. This is obviously a co
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that in either party, regional interest trumps political positions. You can call it hypocrisy if you like, but you should never be surprised when politicians behave this way.
On the Democrat side, take for example Ted Kennedy. Proponent of alternative energy, opponent of expanded oil drilling, but when they wanted to build a wind farm in *his* back yard, he fought it tooth and nail until the day he died.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is where NASA was in 1964? (Score:2)
As opposed to NASA who's Ares I-X rocket is where NASA was in 1957.
spacex for better or worse, has made slow but steady progress towards a manned orbital launch platform and will be ready
years ahead of Ares.
maybe Australia has a space program (Score:2)
Re:maybe Australia has a space program (Score:4, Informative)
and nobody outside Australia knows about it, and we all think it is just some UFO flyover when they launch a rocket in to space.
Come on. Nobody here can keep a secret. Have you met an Australian outside AU who knows how to shut up?
Re: (Score:2)
Come on. Nobody here can keep a secret. Have you met an Australian outside AU who knows how to shut up?
But, that's what they want you to think.
(goes to adjust tinfoil hat)
Some perspective: (Score:4, Interesting)
Some perspective: I used to live in Huntsville, AL, and I currently live in Austin, TX.
Shelby's just trying to protect the funding of of the Marshall SFC NASA group in Huntsville, AL. In their defense, the HSV group kicks a lot of ass, and is a welcome outpost of science and engineering in Alabama.
KBHutchinson is just an ignorant asshole.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Same deal with KBHutchinson, she's trying to protect Johnson Space Center. She could also be an ignorant ass too, I dunno.
I gotta feel bad for Alabama, though. I could be just an ignorant Yankee, but from here, it looks like if you take away Huntsville, Alabama's up an economic creek without a high-tech paddle.
I'm a little confused here.... (Score:2)
...over the key word "Probably"....
Amazing how we can get to space but don't know how...
Sen. Richard Shelby's Comment (Score:2)
Re:Sen. Richard Shelby's Comment (Score:4, Interesting)
Bwahahahaha!!!! That is rich, fucking hilarious even. No, it is not like that at all, or at least not like you mean.
A private company succeeded in launching its first sub/low orbital rocket and it was only a year late. There are no truly innovative technologies used in the Falcon 9. It is comparable to a Titan III rocket, first launched in 1965.
The most innovative part of the Falcon 9 is that both stages are "designed" to be reusable, but that capability is not certain but rather hoped for and has yet to be demonstrated.
Literally, this is the equivalent of a private company demonstrating its new single core, 32 bit, RISC processor. It is old technology that has been mastered repeatedly by others and is nothing special.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
SpaceX isn't aiming to do anything new, they're aiming to do the same thing for less than half the price (per kilogram, Falcon 9 Heavy compared to the Ariane 5).
Re: (Score:2)
It is still a two trick pony: Satellites to LEO, and satellites to GEO. It does not take the place of the shuttle and most especially does not take the place of the Constellation program.
Re: (Score:2)
The microprocessor (e.g. 8086) was crap compared to a mainframe, or even minicomputer, processor. Only in the 1990s did microcomputers add features (e.g. superscalar processing) which supercomputers had been using since the 1960s. What made the microprocessor special was that it was cheap. It meant everyone could have a computer, rather than it being the preserve of government laboratories or mega corporations.
SpaceX is selling the Falcon 9 at a price lower than even 2nd hand Russian military rockets. If
Politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) for merely replicating what 'NASA accomplished in 1964,' who added that the company's success 'must not be confused with progress for our nation's human spaceflight program.'"
The bit he left out was the fact that America as a "nation" has lost the space race altogether. Unless of course you count buying seats on Soyuz spacecraft as part of the "American manned space program"... Yes America put a man on the moon - but what have they done SINCE then, Shelby - while YOU were in office? In fact, while Elon Musk was busy building a billion dollar company (PayPal) that many people use every day, all you did was suck up taxpayer dollars feeding off of society and pretending to be important. Then Mr. Musk goes on to found another visionary company while you just whine and bitch and believe that you actually contribute to society. Truth is that Shelby can be replaced instantly by someone just as mediocre.
SpaceX has demonstrated it can now lift useful, heavy payloads into orbit. This is the beginning of a business model - one that never worked for NASA. Instead of whining about how America did this a long time ago he should realize that this is not costing the taxpayer anything at all AND is the beginning of regular self funding, sustainable space flight. A boon to ALL of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly who did we lose the space race to?
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, we've lost the space race to all those 'desperately needed' 'entitlement' programs that are killing the whole world economy [foxbusiness.com]. Instead of spending a dollar on space research to help all of mankind, we've spent the dollar to breed and feed a mouth that will be hungry again tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Politicians (Score:4, Informative)
Agree. If there's one thing space exploration has taught us, it's that plans count for nothing. The US had grand plans for the Shuttle. The Soviets had grand plans for the Moon. You don't have a space program until main engine cutoff.
I don't want to be a chest-beating American here, the grandparent post may turn out to be true 20 years from now. But right now, at this moment, the U.S. has:
1 guy in orbit
300 tonnes of space station hardware in orbit
13-20 Earth-observing satellites
2-3 sun-observing missions
1 mission to Mercury
1 mission to the asteroid belt
4-5 missions to Mars
1 mission at Saturn
1 mission heading to Pluto
plus some miscellaneous ones I've forgotten about. Some numbers are approximate because it depends on how you count.
Anyway, *that* is a space program. The future may bring what the future may bring, but right now, find me another country that is doing a tenth as much space stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: the guy in orbit is actually a chick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China will have a *permanent* manned lunar base by 2025. They *will* do this, not just talk about it.
So far, they've done a lot more talking than doing. It seems more imminent than it probably is only because credible news sources took the claims of some Chinese scientists too seriously, and because "OMFG China is becoming a superpower" stories have been in vogue for the past decade and becoming even more common. The first stories I could find on this were from 2002, and suggested that China might have a
Re: (Score:2)
China has some of the world's largest solar panel manufacturing plants. There are other resources in space besides He-3.
China cannot achieve a moon base without doing several intermediate steps first. I think they will only be able to do it in 2030 perhaps a bit sooner. One critical milestone is to get their next generation Long March 5 rocket family up and running. The first flight is only planned to happen in 2014 and may slip further. To build a Moon base they will probably wait until their next launc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Russia, China, and soon India all have more advanced space programs than the USA right now.
Not right now. The U.S. put more people into orbit on one flight last month than China has in their entire history. Maybe someday China and India will pass us, but not yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, actually all of the above are more PRIMITIVE than the US' relevant programs. The fact that the space shuttle has been taken out of service doesn't change that fact. The US continues to launch plenty of unmanned missions.
That's HILARIOUS.
China doesn't nothing but talk, extensively, about every topic under the sun
Re: (Score:2)
China talked about the Olympics. Many didn't think they'd get done what needed to get done. They did, and they did better than those who discount them thought they would. Sure, their weather control fell a little short, but they spent billions to get everything done and ready to go. They have the high speed rail to Lhasa, the first an a number of things. They have Three Gorg
Re: (Score:2)
China talked about the Olympics. Many didn't think they'd get done what needed to get done. They did, and they did better than those who discount them thought they would. Sure, their weather control fell a little short, but they spent billions to get everything done and ready to go.
Unseasonal floods != "fell a little flat"
They have the high speed rail to Lhasa, the first an a number of things.
A little early to brag on that right now. WE'll see how it turns out.
They have Three Gorges (mostly done, I think everything from the original plan is done and they added some things that haven't been done yet) and it's the largest power plant of any kind anywhere in the world.
Three Gorges is one of the greatest environmental tragedies of the modern age.
Fits in nicely in a country where copper wire is commonly stripped for recycling by burning off the PVC covering, producing dioxins which travel so far as the USA.
That you say "it never happens" indicates you are an idiot or a liar. Not that I'm arguing with you, as you are obviously not worth it, I just want to make sure no one else listens to your crap.
Certainly it is excessive hyperbole but I think it is fairly clear that China's self-image is seriously overinflated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you never heard that kid's story about the tortoise and the hare, right? Yeah yeah, no value, etc.
No value in starting a colony in the New World either, right? I mean the first colony in what was to become America was in Jamestown Virginia in 1607. The New World was discovered in 1492, 115 years earlier. Certainly there was "no rush" to set up colonies, because I guess the expense (a couple thousand pounds - a small personal fortune in those days) in no way justified such a ven
The other part that Obama's critics dont get (Score:3, Informative)
Obama is trying to develop a viable space program that works and we can actually afford. The first part of that is a lowering
the cost to get stuff to orbit. Spacex will be part of that plan
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's another way of looking at it. Kind of a Republican way, though Sen. Shelby would hate to admit it.
The achievements of NASA are not the only things the U.S. has accomplished. For all its weaknesses, the U.S. is the only country on Earth where some random dude from South Africa can come, get an education, become a citizen, start a company to revolutionize the way the world buys stuff, sell it for bajillions, and then start launching rockets into orbit, partly because it's awesome, partly as a steppin
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... Numerous Mars Rovers and other probes, Hubble space telescope, Spitzer space telescope, New Horizons on it's way to intergalactic space, put up and assembled a massive space station, etc.
Yeah, nothing...
Ob. Red Dwarf (Score:4, Funny)
"spiraling light" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so then, why these spirals started coming up recently despite we have been launching rockets, satellites, space shuttles, and even suborbital planes for around 58 years ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
being a witless idiot by trying to rationalize things that are yet NOT known and yet not even researched, without getting off your armchair makes one look even more stupider than the one who propagates a conspiracy theory. not that i did propagate one. what i said was that we did NOT know what was that, and the shitty 'swamp gas' like cold war era soun
Re: (Score:2)
New types of propellant, new types of engines, new designs of rocket design, more frequent launches...
You left out the real reason - new procedures to prevent space junk from exploding boosters and fuel tanks - they now routinely dump the remaining fuel overboard after the boost phase is complete, making the spirals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ass.
Perhaps you'll believe Elon Musk himself [space.com]:
"I heard people in Australia thought UFOs were visiting :)," SpaceX's millionaire founder Elon Musk told SPACE.com in an e-mail. "The venting of propellants, which is done to ensure that an overpressure event doesn't produce orbital debris, created a temporary halo caught the sun at just the right angle for a great view from Australia. I thought the pictures looked really cool."
Or perhaps let me google it for you [lmgtfy.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you missed the coverage [youtube.com] and the fact that Russia Admitted it was a failed missile test [dailymail.co.uk]?
Admit it, you're just a crackpot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Skylab (Score:5, Funny)
Oz has every right to be worried when pieces of spacecraft come flying over them.
Eventually we will put all the pieces together and have our own space program.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Australia would be a good place to put a space port. Many rockets were launched from Woomera a couple of decades ago. I also remember some corporation wanted to launch Russian rockets from Christmas Island. The problem is most of the places which actually manufacture launchers are very far away from Australia...
Woomera is too far south for equatorial launches. There was a proposal for a spaceport on Cape York but in truth it is going to lose out to places right on the equator.
Also if you launch east from woomera you cross the east coast, where is where most of the population lives. Its a bad architecture from the word go.
If orbital commerce really takes off the ideal place would be the east side of Johor Bahru [google.com]. Unless Singapore beats them to it of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any sort of sources at all for this? I didn't know that the Falcon 9 was ever supposed to be able to achieve escape velocity. What exactly where they supposedly shooting for? A moon shot?
Anyways, their brand new rocket didn't blow up and acheived orbit the first time they tried it, I think it'd be easy to spin this as a sucess regardless.
Re:Second Stage Burn over australia (Score:5, Informative)
There is always a final burn after 1/2 orbit to circularize the orbit. Which is probably what the OP was babbling about. There was no intention to put the Falcon 9 into an escape orbit.
On the other hand, Falcon 9 is capable of putting a payload into GEO. It requires more deltaV to achieve a circular orbit at GEO than it does to reach escape speed (if the fuel needed to circularize the orbit at GEO were spent during the initial boost, Falcon 9 would be about 150 m/s shy of a Mars transfer orbit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to the Falcon 9 user's guide [spacex.com], it's capable of sending a payload of about 2.5 tons to escape velocity (C3=0).
Though I agree, the OP meant "orbit circularization".
Anyway, three cheers for SpaceX, but if I were NASA I'd make damn sure they know what the deal was with that roll before they let a Dragon anywhere near the ISS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thing the first: the next test flight will put the prototype Dragon into orbit for tests. It won't go to the ISS.
Thing the second: the real Dragon (as opposed to the dummy atop yesterday's test launch) has quite a comprehensive set of maneuvering & attitude control thrusters. It should be quite capable of stabilizing itself, even if it ends
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From Heavens-above.com:
Dragon/Falcon 9's orbit: 242 x 268 km, 34.5 (Epoch Jun 7)
I'd say they made their orbit. If you live within about 40 degrees of the equator you're likely to have visible passes of the spacecraft. Use heavens-above.com to get listings for your location.
not an Earth escape mission (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Obligatory (Score:2)
<voice type="Jean-Luc Picard">
There are FOUR LIGHTS!!!!
</voice>