Not sure if anyone really is following the commercialization of space flight, but SpaceX's latest Falcon 9 just exploded about half an hour ago moments after launch.
Of course, too early to figure out what happened, the SpaceX did receive a contract to develop a manned version of their Falcon-Dragon capsule.
Might be a big setback for the US space program and the ISS...
That schmuck won the award as soon as he woke up this morning
so they are in need of supplies
Dumb comment.
This is SpaceX's first complete failure in 19 launches. They also had a partial failure: the launch was successful and the primary payload was inserted in orbit, but a secondary payload's rocket failed to ignite.
By contrast, NASA had a 80% success rate in the 60s.
How long will it be before DG attempts re-entry?
Satellites. The big money is in satellites.
SpaceX has a nice thing going. Their launch systems were developed for a fraction of the cost of comparable rockets and their payload costs are lower than anyone else. They are working on a reusable first stage which would further cut costs. They've had some success and some failures.
Obviously today is a big setback. It will be interesting to know what the causes are and what, if any, implications will be for the commercial crew development program.
Better Musk learns now that in the space business every little detail matters and he can tone down his hubris and learning something before he starts launching astronauts.
Explodes / breaks apart about 2:00 into the video:
Video - ( New Window )
As someone else said, this will likely have to almost exclusively rely on the telemetry data. The vehicle seems to have completely been torn apart by an explosion, depressurization and / or aerodynamic forces. Not a lot of physical evidence will likely be found.
Slo Mo - ( New Window )
Like 1 poster notes, we've had manned rockets successfully reach the moon back in '69. It's probably due to a brand new design that is is very complex. It's made not for a 1-shot deal, all or nothing but to to be "affordable" and somewhat "reusable".
I'm a little surprised by the explosion because of all our advances in computer simulation. I'm thinking that it may have been a part failure similar to the way the shuttle's O-rings failed 25 years back.
It will be interesting to see if it's a quality control or design problem. Better to get this out of the way while these Falcon designs are unmanned.
Like 1 poster notes, we've had manned rockets successfully reach the moon back in '69. It's probably due to a brand new design that is is very complex. It's made not for a 1-shot deal, all or nothing but to to be "affordable" and somewhat "reusable".
I'm a little surprised by the explosion because of all our advances in computer simulation. I'm thinking that it may have been a part failure similar to the way the shuttle's O-rings failed 25 years back.
It will be interesting to see if it's a quality control or design problem. Better to get this out of the way while these Falcon designs are unmanned.
The Apollo program had 12 missions. The first resulted in the death of all 3 astronauts. Apollo 13 twice nearly killed all 3 astronauts: it came close to exploding on takeoff, then had a near catastrophic failure in space.
The most dangerous part of any space mission is takeoff. Breaking the atmosphere takes a tremendous amount of force. A rocket is a controlled explosions. Sometimes, like today, not so controlled.
I don't mind his ego. I just wish he'd use more of his own money (or money from private investors) and less taxpayer money to feed it.
Quote:
We don't need our inventors to have any ego.
I don't mind his ego. I just wish he'd use more of his own money (or money from private investors) and less taxpayer money to feed it.
I've noticed this sentiment focused mostly on him and few else. $81 billion for corn, big oil raking in government money while rocking huge profits...
You can't touch corn and win the Iowa Caucus. Just an example of why they don't get eliminated.
Crispino : 6/28/2015 4:40 pm : link : reply
for that comment? Jesus, hair trigger.
It's the same fuckstain inundating the board with the Duke Johnson is the greatest ever crap. The way I look at it, the banning is for an accumulation of yellow cards. Like 20,000 of them.
NASA is currently paying Putin $75 million per astronaut for a seat on the Soyz.
SpaceX will do the same for less than a third of the cost.
Not sure how that's considered corporate welfare....
When the gov't buy a fleet of cars from Ford, that's "commercial" as Ford develops the cars on "commercial / private" funds.
There is nothing wrong with being a government contractor. What is wrong is claiming one isn't a government contractor or claiming one isn't getting government money, when one in fact is.
It's a NASA program developed years ago. They named it, not Musk.
It is a black eye that the US can't get to the space station on it's own.
When the gov't buy a fleet of cars from Ford, that's "commercial" as Ford develops the cars on "commercial / private" funds.
There is nothing wrong with being a government contractor. What is wrong is claiming one isn't a government contractor or claiming one isn't getting government money, when one in fact is.
Yes. SpaceX received something on the order of $600 million contract to development commercial crew transport.
NASA is going to spend approximately $40 billion to develop their own system.
I'd think the taxpayers are actually getting a decent bargain from SpaceX in comparison.
NASA is working to send humans to Mars and returning them safely. 2020s and maybe 2030s technology required to do that. Comparing those costs is meaningless; two complete different, almost diametrically opposite missions.
Is NASA, as any government organization, an inefficient, money wasting entity? Absolutely.
The thing I like (or dislike less) about Musk is he truly seems to want to help getting humans to Mars; I applaud him for that.
A group of "super rich uncles" (Jeff Bezos, Paul Allen, Richard Branson and Musk) can probably get humans to Mars quicker and more efficiently than NASA. Can all of those egos, especially Musk's, fit in one room and work together; probably not. Therefore, we're probably stuck with NASA.
There are currently no banks or shops in space, so it turns out every dollar NASA spends is spent right here down on Earth. The design, R&D, and manufacture of satellites, rockets, and other space-related technologies--and employing tens of thousands of people to do it--pump billions of dollars into the U.S. economy. Studies estimate a $7-$14 return on investment for every $1 of NASA expenditure, with all of it going directly back into the U.S. Treasury.
NASA ROI - ( New Window )
worthwhile spending? I think so.
spent efficiently? debatable.
overall, I don't think we spend a lot on NASA. Could it be spent better within NASA? maybe. do we really get all that much out of the political milestone of the space station? Or would we do better to scrap it and spend more on probe exploration?
Now, if you want to argue the ISS itself is a waste of money, that's another story. Though they have done a lot of medical research there and obviously quite a bit of robotics, precision guidance work.
However, as with any large government agency, there is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy that a "lean and mean commercial outfit" could do better IF they had the appropriate knowledge.
NASA didn't do GPS; the military did that. A few useful things from the DOD: Internet, GPS ...
The ISS/Space Station does siphon away a lot of NASA's budget on something that has proven to have limited scientific value. ISS is mostly a political success; getting 16 countries to cooperate on something that is positive is hard. ISS will likely pave the way for future internation human missions, including ones to Mars. That will be the ISS legacy IMHO.
It will be interesting to see if it's a quality control or design problem. Better to get this out of the way while these Falcon designs are unmanned.
It's always quality's fault.
Either the requirements / design was bad (Engineering's fault) or a good requirements / design were built bad (Manufacturing's fault).
If you're relying on Quality / inspections, you've got big problems.
Either the requirements / design was bad (Engineering's fault) or a good requirements / design were built bad (Manufacturing's fault).
If you're relying on Quality / inspections, you've got big problems.
That was tongue in cheek as quality usually gets the blame for defects. But yes, you are correct, quality SHOULD be built into the process from design to manufacturing.