Posted on 05/21/2012 4:47:45 PM PDT by KevinDavis
Good luck again.. I'm sure they will make it..
I’m sure they will but I still think NASA made a mistake scrapping the Saturn series.
I blame the politicians like Fritz Mondale..
It’s not like it’s rocket surgery...
Was it just some computer glitch last time?
I believe a sensor indicated too much pressure one of engines. Faulty check valve, abnormally high chamber pressure in the engine that caused the abort.
Put me on your list.
My son works for Space X.
Thanks
ah, false positive or something?
I wish SpaceX the best but flooding the commercial sector with our vast accumulation of space exploration knowledge is tantamount to declassifying everything.. Just a big government giveaway or space 'redistribution of knowledge' program. Bye bye American exceptionalism.
If there's ONE thing our government SHOULD control it's space exploration programs, not health care, soda sales in schools, Wall Street or student and home loans. If it's bassackwards, it's 'bama!
Here’s hoping the early morning wakeup isn’t wasted this time. Will snap a pic or two for FR from Daytona.
Too many white guys made the space program successful. Can't have that in anti-white, multicultural, everybody is smart and a genius, America.
Space cannot remain strictly government. Its like sending Louis and Clark west and keeping everything west of the Mississippi hidden from us.
Unlike many here, I see a role for government in space in the pathfinding, prospecting, and defensive roles but they can’t keep it to themselves. SpaceX is only working a government contract like Boeing or Halliburton but they’ll get beyond the government contracts and benefit us all in the future.
Indeed..
Don’t scrap NASA, just reduce it to oversight of R&D and commercial endeavors.
Rutan/Allen/Scaled did the whole WhiteKnight/SpaceShipOne program for about $25 million.
Bigelow has at least two prototype inflatable habitats in orbit, all on money he made from budget hotel suites.
NASA is too PC and CYA to get things done economically.
Watch the Black Sky documentary:
Short version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKa67ObI7yk
Burt Rutan: Entrepreneurs are the future of space flight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwfSENkvJXY&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL4281277EE98C5A39
I will be praying just as hard as the next guy for the launch tonight. I know there are certain launch 'windows' but wee morning hours launch times doesn't exactly maximize public viewing or interest in SpaceX.
I do.
but there's a reason for everything Obama does and it's usually not favorable to America.
Usually? Try NEVER.
Whether they fly or not is irrelevant....the design with nine motors is atrocious.
Their sequencing of said motors is a nightmare.
They should have bit the bullet and designed another engine to reduce it to three instead of multiplying the possibility of failure.
I think NASA has to look elsewhere....probably the Atlas.
Dunno...Just heard an engine pressure issue.
You are correct.
A small rocket like this one would be better with three larger engines.
A new heavy-lifter for say 100 tons to orbit would be better with five huge engines.
Hopefully it will be a totally successful mission this go around.
“If there’s ONE thing our government SHOULD control it’s space exploration programs”
This is what gave us the Space Shuttle, and killed the Saturn V. This was the most monumental colossal failure in the history of human exploration since 15th century China destroyed their sea-going fleet.
Think of all the stuff we could have built with the 100+ shuttle flights if we didn’t bring all the weight of each shuttle back down to earth.
Think of what we could have built in space with 100 Saturn V rockets.
The US government should not be given control of American exploration.
The first Falcon 9 flight was launched from Cape Canaveral on June 4, 2010, with a successful orbital insertion.
The second launch of the Falcon 9, and the first of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft atop it, occurred December 8, 2010, The Dragon spacecraft completed two orbits, then splashed down in the Pacific Ocean.
I agree, he’s doing it to hurt America. Its a program that inspires dreams, hard work and education. Not something he wants.
Who would benefit from declassifying the technology to put heavy payload rockets into space? Seems anyone wanting an ICBM would be very interested.
This is what gave us the Space Shuttle, and killed the Saturn V. This was the most monumental colossal failure in the history of human exploration since 15th century China destroyed their sea-going fleet.
Ya mean ya didn't like the shuttle missions making 24,000 orbits of the earth?
It was like watching NASCAR go in endless circles. Well, maybe not that bad.
“Ya mean ya didn’t like the shuttle missions making 24,000 orbits of the earth? “
Don’t get me wrong, the machines were impressive manifestations of 1970’s technology, but the first law of space launch (if there isn’t one, there should be) is that once you get something into orbit, don’t waste the orbiting resource and the energy to get it there by bringing it back!
Not it is not, but I'm rooting for SpaceX - it has a good plan and overall strategy.
I may not be awake for the launch (I'll try though) but regardless go Falcon 9 and Dragon!!!
That too, but all it did was obit the earth, and really didn’t go anywhere. My idea of space exploration, is going to Mars, and building a small exploration base on the lunar surface for starters.
Just imagine if those in the ships of Columbus’s day had decided to endlessly circle around the Mediterranean instead of making the big exploration leaps.
So Kevin...please post your engineering credentials. What you've written is nonsense, IMO.
SpaceX is proceeding with the most economical, sensical approach it can, meaning reusing proven designs and using redundancy to reduce risk.
The bottom line is cost per ton to LEO, and SpaceX is the leader there. I'm interested to hear your rebuttal.
“My idea of space exploration, is going to Mars, and building a small exploration base on the lunar surface for starters.”
100 Saturn V payloads could have made both of those things happen.
We’re apparently in violent agreement! Squandered opportunity and resources, and all we have is a few static displays.
You make an important point.
SpaceX is treading a pathway into space laid down by govenment research. No serious person ought to overlook the tremendous investment of taxpayer dollars and government/commercial effort needed to get to this point. But, to give President Obama credit, we do now know this technology well enough that routine missions to low earth orbit should transition from government to commercial execution.
Once SpaceX (and other commercial competitors) demonstrate they can safely, reliably, and economically deliver cargo and passengers to earth orbit(economically being a relative term here), investors are going to want to develop places other than the ISS for those delivery vehicles to go to. That demand/need will, in turn, drive the competition for customers and engineering creativity needed for the “commercialization of space” to become a realty.
None of us will be around to see space commercialization in full bloom, but a successful SpaceX mission to ISS is truly going to be a major moment in human spacefaring history.
I wish them luck.
|
I'll check with the spice agent on that. |
Agree.
????
The Shuttle was part of the Apollo Technology Program which started in the late 1960s. NASA wanted to make the most of technology from the Apollo program so that not all of the technology would wither on the vine once the project ended. ATP led to Skylab (two launch articles were made and only one launched) and the Shuttle. The latter had as ONE of its mission objectives to work with Skylab and build a larger space station. With the completion of the ISS, the “Space Station Construction Mission” was finished. Part of the reason for having a reusable launch vehicle was to retrieve reparable satellites and even swap-out space station modules (not just assemble a station). In short, the Shuttle program was not an arbitrary decision on the part of NASA; it was seen as a deliberate follow-up of the Apollo program.
Well, the Lords of Budgets deemed that the end of Apollo automatically meant an end to the Saturn series (including the Saturn 1B). In the minds of many, those launchers were seen as program-specific, so the end of the program meant the end of the launchers. Hell, it is still a shame that Skylab wasn’t boosted into a higher orbit or that the second launch article was never launched.
so what happened??????
Scary, ain't it. Put on your big girl panties. Russia launched with a cluster of engines for years.
/johnny
Ummm. With 12 commercial launches per year, and over 15 commercial companies doing those launches around the world.... yes... We're seeing space commercialization that has been going on for decades.
Governments don't build rockets. Nasa doesn't build rockets. They hire companies to build them.
/johnny
I used to provide beacon readout for the eastern range at KSC and Canaveral. Sitting in on Space-X’s first launch gave me a detailed education on the problems with 9 motors.
There are certain things government does very well in, such as a standing military.....etc., also space flight.
If cost is the holy grail for you, be prepared for a body count that will prove my point.
I have every hope of success....just not the direction that Space-X has taken it.
Once again, Atlas is probably going to prove the best platform.
I used to provide beacon readout for the eastern range at KSC and Canaveral. Sitting in on Space-X’s first launch gave me a detailed education on the problems with 9 motors.
There are certain things government does very well in, such as a standing military.....etc., also space flight.
If cost is the holy grail for you, be prepared for a body count that will prove my point.
I have every hope of success....just not the direction that Space-X has taken it.
Once again, Atlas is probably going to prove the best platform.
Fingers crossed for a flawless launch and insertion.
Yes they have....not to mention, the rocket clusters are spread out much more than Space-X.
Space-X has there rockets clustered too close to the cum-line of the rocket.
2 or 3 rockets shutdown during the boost phase and bad things happen quicker.
Big girl panties might be useful for making it back to earth if all fails.
Indeed. The Saturn 1B had eight engines in the first stage.
All of their launches had delays....for the same thing...engine sequence.
2 launches is a vision for you?
I was there for the first launch at Canaveral...supporting it for the Eastern Range.
I need no education on when and where.
I’m giving you insight on what and why.
BTW.....”Kevin”????????????
What about using some form of a mag-lev sled to get the space craft moving quickly in a horizontal direction, then slowly ramp it upward and ingite the engines after it's already got a lot of momentum? Wouldn't that be a lot more efficient than using brute force thrust to shove the craft skyward from a dead stop?
I'm obviously no expert, but it seems like the current way is about the least efficient way to launch any space craft. I welcome all responses, even if I'm totally wrong and get schooled for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
