We don’t know if they’ve successfully achieved orbit, but they were well on their way when we lost contact, and this was a pretty successful first flight even if something goes wrong at the end. It won’t quiet the people whining about “hobbyists,” and “toy rockets,” but they were always idiots.
It was particularly impressive that they had a successful launch within two hours of an ignition abort. I don’t think anyone else in the business can recycle that fast.
I’m hearing that they had a minor roll problem with the second stage. That actually reassures me — the flight was looking too good for a first flight. It’s nice to catch something to fix — that’s what test flights are for. And it seems to be robust, because the guidance system seems to have gotten them to the designated orbit even with the problem.
[Update a few minutes later]
The SpaceFlightNow webcast is showing Bolden saying something, but I don’t have audio.
[Update at 12:30 Pacific]
The Youtubes are going up.
And my email to Gwynne and her reply:
Hundreds and Thank you!
—–Original Message—–
From: Rand Simberg
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 8:55 AM
To: Gwynne Shotwell
Subject: CongratulationsYou’ll be getting a lot of emails like this, I’ll bet.
It’s a new world. And many more.
It will be very interesting to see how this affects the debate, if at all.
[Update mid afternoon]
Apparently the chutes didn’t open on the first stage. I don’t know if that means it will be unrecoverable, but it won’t be in good shape. “Debris field” doesn’t sound good. One more thing to wring the bugs out of.
[Update a few minutes later]
First-stage chute deployment is one of the things that they didn’t test, I think. At least until today. I suspect they just decided that the cheapest way to test it would be on the first flight, instead of spending extra money on a drop test, which wouldn’t be practical from the separation altitude anyway. It’s just a cost issue, and not mission critical. They’ll have plenty of flights to sort it out.
Congratulations, indeed! They did all the hard things, from running multiple manifolded engines though the always-a-headache staging.
Even if the roll rate caused early shutdown, and they don’t make a full orbit, this was an outstanding success.
From the SpaceX webcast:
Posted June 04, 2010 11:54 Pacific Time
T+ 00:09:04 Falcon 9 has achieved Earth Orbit!
Posted June 04, 2010 11:54 Pacific Time
T+ 00:08:50 Second Stage Engine Shut-Down
Does the second stage have roll control, or is it supposed to be handled by Dragon?
The lack of a real capsule might explain that, if that is the case…
Looked good! The lack of the Dragon crossed my mind too when that roll started, but aside from that you wouldn’t have known that it was the first D9 launch ever.
And I am with Rand, when was the last time you heard of NASA reseting and launching within 2 hours of an abort???
It has roll control. You could see that the feedback loop was broken. The roll control nozzle was in front of the camera and it was only doing the occasional full-extent twitch, and after a while, nothing at all.
They might have attitude control on the test capsule. Not sure if they can use that to stabilise.
Congratulations! Elon needed a home run and he got one!
Frank,
Now where am I going to paste that text now that you beat me to the punch?
A lot of news sites seem to be still saying the launch was scrubbed. Typical quality science/technology coverage.
It was scrubbed. Then they turned it around and launched.
Right, but it’s not like it’s hard to notice when a rocket launches. Shoot, I can see some of them all the way from Tampa.
Halfway to anywhere.
I’m sure Mark will soon tell us how the Internet Rocket Club faked the whole thing.
Had an interminable meeting with some engineers & managers from A Very Big Aerospace Corporation of America a couple days ago. Someone asked one of the Olde Guarde what he thought of the “new direction” of space socialism – predictably, he cynically bemoaned private sector motivations, etc. I doubt his opinion or those of his fellows have changed.
For those of us looking ahead, it is a great day.
Edward Wright wrote:
I’m sure Mark will soon tell us how the Internet Rocket Club faked the whole thing.
If you’re following the thread on Space Politics, that’s exactly what amightywind is saying.
Mike
Mark my words–we’ll see people in Dragon spacecraft before we see them in anything NASA cobbles together. Most excellent.
Thanks for grabbing the launch video from youtube. My 4 year old is expecting to see “a new rocket launch” when he gets home from daycare. 🙂
When I was watching the aborted launch, the abort happened mighty close to T=0. But SpaceX actually discusses pinning the rocket to the ground after ignition for final checks.
-> Was that rocket -lit-, then aborted (which was possible because it was still attached to the ground), then reset for this successful mission?
Yes, they actually got past T-0 before the abort, and started to ignite. They don’t release until they get nominal readings.
Then that sounds like a pretty astonishing turn around, and all performed remotely AFAIK.
I was crossing my fingers all the time. I even crossed my toes when it got to T-10 secs. 🙂
That launch was nothing short of awesome. The nine first stage engines firing up in a big yellow trail of fire, second stage separation and ignition, the Earth getting smaller and smaller, the sky turning black.
And there was much rejoicing.
Awesome.
This flight is going down in history folks. Now SpaceX should do some celebrating before they get back to manufacturing (3!) more vehicles plus assorted Dragon capsules for COTS demo launches this year. Even if they only launch one or two more Falcon 9s this year it is going to be no small feat. Kudos are in order.
Yeah, I was wondering if all that stage-2 roll was normal/expected.
Fantastic! Now let’s set the clocks for a manned Dragon launch three years hence.
What great timing for a home run! Way to go, Space X!
Wow… that was fantastic!
I for one was thinking they might have a failure, and it would be spun (ilogically, of course, but that never stops them) to discredit commercial space.
Yes, they had some bugs, but I can’t think of any first flight that didn’t. On the first Shuttle flight, they came very close to losing the vehicle and crew due to the SRB pressure pulse, and even so they had a good day, by first-flight standards.
This is an awsome acheivment on many levels. The one I find the most astrounding is that they developed this vehicle, and the Falcon 1, and have now orbited both, for less in total development than NASA blew on the Ares (Estes) X-1 mock-up launch that used zero Ares hardware.
I was watching live when they had the shutdown abort today, and I figured there was no chance of a lauch… my guess (based on a shuttle pad abort) was it would take a month or two to try again. That fast turnaround was yet another demonstration of their new and better way of doing things.
Congratulations, Space-X!
Excellent for SpaceX and the potential for future spaceflight.
Video of the whole launch all the way to orbit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP5gykvTBpM
I love the MSNBC headline (and I don’t get to say that often!):
Shuttle successor succeeds in first test flight
I firmly believe that were SpaceX to receive the $$ that will be wasted on the Orion lifeboat in the coming year they could have a manned Dragon in orbit within 12 months.
Absolutely the best news I’ve heard since 1969.
I was also originally thinking that it was going too well for a first flight. Something that complex, working perfectly the first time indicates a lot of luck going your way, and doesn’t teach you anything, or help you make any progress toward reliability. Speaking only from Mr. Musk’s prior field, software engineering, but I think some of it likely applies for any complex mechanism.
It was very exiting to see, today, and a sign of good things to come.
Video up:
http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php
Does anyone else think the roll in the first second or two of the flight is a bit sporty?
Paul
I’ve only skimmed a few forums and blogs (still at work and deadlines wait for no one I’m afraid), but I see two types of reaction:
1) “Yeah! Go SpaceX!”
2) “Well, sure, it launched. Big deal. It’s still highly experimental. You should be as critical of Falcon as you were of Ares 1-X. I see no proof it made it to orbit. That roll isn’t good, it’s a huge design flaw. You’re a mindless Musk worshipper.” Etc etc.
I would be curious to learn from where the second type of posting originates. It’s like some people aren’t happy we might have easier access to space…
Just wondering how long this has been on the table? If has been more than 5 years, then why give obama any credit for this. Isnt this a private venture? if it is then capitalism done a good job funding this project.
… Come, my friends,
‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
@Paul, I noticed that too. “Sporty”? Heh. Thanks for the video link!
On a press conf Elon said that the expenditures so far on Falcon 1 and 9, plus current state of Dragon are at around half a billion.
..around half a billion
Or roughly the cost of a Falcon 9 engineering mock-up if NASA were running the program.
Half a billion… same as for the Ares IX. Trying to remember… that was a one-off suborbital test of a shuttle SRB that lasted a couple minutes, right? While SpaceX spent that same amount building up a privately owned company over several years, starting at the bottom and sweating their way up one of the engineering world’s most treacherous learning curves, and launching three rockets into orbit.
Not much of a comparison, is it?
Robert Heinlein is smiling.
“On a press conf Elon said that the expenditures so far on Falcon 1 and 9, plus current state of Dragon are at around half a billion.”
I believe that. Now, compare it to the most recent program successfully completed by the MSAI: the RS-68 engine. That was done in the late 1990s (first firing at Stennis in 1999), for $700 million. It was about $100 million over the original budget. Yet I would call it a stunning success for the industry, because it beat NASA MSFC’s 1989 estimate of a new engine development program, namely: $3 billion dollars.
With the private New Space industry, we get two and a half new engines and two entire vehicle classes, developed and flight demonstrated, for less than the cost of a single engine developed by the mainstream aerospace industry.
Random, possibly dumb question: what are the four towers that surround the launch pad at SLC-40? I’ve been googling around but can’t find any precise description. Are they some kind of radar or other range control/safety system?
Thanks.
With the private New Space industry, we get two and a half new engines and two entire vehicle classes, developed and flight demonstrated, for less than the cost of a single engine developed by the mainstream aerospace industry.
That price includes not only the rockets, engines, avionics, software development, Dragon capsule but also the ground infrastructure (hangars, mission control, launch pad modifications, fueling infrastructure) etc at the Cape and at Kwaj.
It sure makes a difference when you keep the development in-house and don’t depend on contractors working on cost-plus contracts. I’ve read that Lockheed-Martin has 1000 engineers working in Denver on the Orion capsule. SpaceX has fewer than 1000 employees total.
Based on the live launch feed and the youtube video, it looks like F9 left the pad at T-minus 1 or 2 seconds. I had been expecting it to fire on the pad for a bit before they released the clamps. Would that indicate some sort of problem in the engine start verification and release processes?
Scott
Are they some kind of radar or other range control/safety system?
Lightning masts I think.
@JSFDenver:
Those towers protect the Falcon from lightning. The Atlas and Delta pads have similar towers. Pad 39B had towers like that added before Ares 1-X.
MfK / LarryJ:
:sigh: holy crap guys non-man-rated rockets are cheap! WHO KNEW?
“I’ve read that Lockheed-Martin has 1000 engineers working in Denver on the Orion capsule. ”
I work for Lockheed. You’re wrong. Shit, if only we had positions for 1000 engineers!
And–let me just get this straight, here, let me just make sure I understand you–you’re saying that it’s better if there are fewer jobs for rocket scientists. I mean, is that really what you’re trying to tell us here? Really?
Fantastic, absolutely fantastic! Congratulations SpaceX!
I was resolved to explain to my less-in-the-know friends why a failure wouldn’t be significant, but this is so much better.
—
I have an ignorant question as well. Did the rocket plume have more sparkly bits (like a sparkler on the 4th of July) than a typical plume? Did it have perhaps even more than Falcon 1’s plume? Am I seeing evidence of nine ablative nozzles?
:sigh: holy crap guys non-man-rated rockets are cheap! WHO KNEW?
Yeah, and to think SpaceX did it without the billion plus dollars in taxpayer subsidizies that Boeing and Lock-Mart each received to develop the EELVs. Imagine that!
And–let me just get this straight, here, let me just make sure I understand you–you’re saying that it’s better if there are fewer jobs for rocket scientists. I mean, is that really what you’re trying to tell us here? Really?
So, are you admitting NASA just running a jobs program for rocket scientists? Because that would be easy to believe. They sure aren’t running an efficient space program so they must be focused on doing something else.
DensityDuck, ignorant as I am, I bet you’ll find that Falcon 9 was man-rated (in the sense that it follows NASA’s protocols) from the start. As a first step toward a proof of that, look at the fourth paragraph here:
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20090729
you–you’re saying that it’s better if there are fewer jobs for rocket scientists.
Don’t forget rocket scientists cost money. The more you have to employ, the less useful your rocket becomes. Second, those rocket scientists could be working on something else. You’re losing the value of that alternative labor.
Bob-1: I think the sparkly stuff during the initial part of the launch was ice. It wasn’t burning, but was reflecting light from the plume.
“I’ve read that Lockheed-Martin has 1000 engineers working in Denver on the Orion capsule. ”
I work for Lockheed. You’re wrong. Shit, if only we had positions for 1000 engineers!
I admit that I got the number wrong. According to the Denver Post, the number of employees building the Orion is 600-650, not the 1000 I stated.
Still, that’s 600-650 people to build the Orion capsule. That might even include the service module. That compares to the 900+ employees at SpaceX who build the Falcon 1, the Falcon 9, and the Dragon capsule including all structures, engines, avionics, launch infrastructure, mission control, etc.
Q: How many employees work at SpaceX and what is it like to work there?
A: The SpaceX team now numbers more than 900, principally located at our Hawthorne, California facilities, with a large team in McGregor, TX, where SpaceX conducts large structural and propulsion testing. SpaceX has smaller teams in Washington, DC; Cape Canaveral, Florida; and the Kwajalein Atoll (Reagan Test Site) in the Marshall Islands