Posted on 05/06/2016 7:25:31 AM PDT by Elderberry
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket rises off the pad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida carrying the JCSAT-14 communications satellite on May 6, 2016.
Photos on site.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
You would have thought they could have provide a little more information than they did at the site. Nothing really to comment on except that I assume they had a successful launch and recovery. I must assume because they don’t really say.
I do have to really credit SpaceX for turning the incredible into the mundane. Rockets landing on tails of fire, hitting a tiny tiny target in the middle of the sea. Now repeatedly.
Well, that "is" kind of the point..... :^)
I keep wondering about what this will do for the cost of insurance for space launches.
Almost all launches have insurance, but if the specific rocket being used has been "proven" by previous launches it might bring the risk down substantially.
and NASA is going back to Apollo type spacecraft
I'm not so sure it led to the demise of the shuttle program. That look more political and left us without any means to get to our own people on a foreigner's space station.
What kind of idiot would do that?...never mind.
I’m reading Elon Musk’s biography. The guy dreams big, has an unbelievable will, is a ball buster to himself and the people that work for him, gets things done that most people would find impossible.
He’s someone you don’t bet against. His big dream is Mars - I would not bet against him getting there... and a tenth of the cost that NASA does it for.
Awesome stuff! That was a pretty much max-v launch with recovery!
The full launch and landing sequence can be viewed at:
(BTW I view these first few successful landings as amazing historical events - not mundane in the slightest!)
It appears to have been a perfect mission thus far.
Awesome stuff! That was a pretty much max-v launch with recovery!
...
Yes. It was a ballistic trajectory. The final landing burn used three engines instead of one like the others. Musk gave it a 50% chance of succeeding, but it looks like the landing was perfect. The video is fun to watch because the employees think the landing is a failure at first, then two seconds later they see the rocket standing there and they erupt into cheers which turn into chants of USA.
That was the problem NASA had with both the Apollo program and the space shuttle. They became so routine that, with the exceptions of disasters or near disasters, the public just yawned. Ultimately it led to cuts in Apollo missions.
I’m not so sure it led to the demise of the shuttle program. That look more political and left us without any means to get to our own people on a foreigner’s space station.
What kind of idiot would do that?...never mind.
...
Presence on the ISS wasn’t critical. If anything we should have grounded the Shuttle sooner. Apollo and the Shuttle were extremely expensive, and in the case of the Shuttle, way too dangerous for its mission.
I read an article today that SpaceX is putting extreme pricing pressures on United Launch Alliance. There’s no way they can come close to matching SpaceX’s prices and are starting layoffs.
and NASA is going back to Apollo type spacecraft
...
They’ll have multiple crew capsules from which to chose, including one built by SpaceX. Capsules are the best solution considering cost and safety. NASA is also going to use a winged spacecraft built by Sierra Nevada for cargo missions. The military is currently using another winged spacecraft for unmanned long term space research missions.
The Apollo program was way too expensive considering the risk. It was a national prestige program. It could have ended after Apollo 11 and met the goal.
The Shuttle program was much more productive in moving usable payloads into low earth orbits. It was never developed to its design potential because of overoptimistic claims of reusability.
All space flight is dangerous because of the hostile operational environment. Yet the same could be said of submarine operations and commercial flight. Both are unqualified successes despite significantly more loss of life than the space program.
It boils down to public acceptance of risk vs return on investment. Space travel was too abstract, even exotic, to capture the sustained imagination of the average man on the street.
“It boils down to public acceptance of risk vs return on investment. Space travel was too abstract, even exotic, to capture the sustained imagination of the average man on the street.”
Actually I think it captures the imagination of many, especially as the Earth becomes more and more civilized, and there are no new frontiers.
The extreme expense of space travel on the taxpayer’s dime is what’s caused pushback. The arrival of private enterprise on the scene is a turning point.
The fact is, there is unbounded wealth in space, and that is where the future of humanity lies.
I agree 100% that this will change public perspective on access to space in general. It's success will now depend on the inevitable government regulatory intervention on how such a private program will be exercised. Will it be man rated? Will the govt see the FAA or NASA as the regulating agencies. Will they help or hinder?
I don't see a great deal of support on things like a mission to Mars. As the public learns the risks and rigors of such a mission, support will diminish. No one will sit around looking at a TV for years to track a single mission. The public was barely interested in Apollo after Apollo 11.
Private space travel will get literally 15 minutes of fame if successful. And woe be to everyone involved if it fails. Congresscritters and NASA will be all over the program to assess blame and tell how they would have done it better.
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.