“…are now operating nominally. Preparing to raise orbit. All systems green.”
Congrats to SpaceX.
Another successful failure, which is invaluable for learning and continuing to improve the system.
[Update a few minutes later]
Alan Boyle has the story.
Maybe the earlier problems were from having loaned the spacecraft out to a New York Times reporter?
“Another successful failure, which is invaluable for learning and continuing to improve the system.”
Like my first marriage.
It never fails to amaze me though how fast SpaceX has been able to adapt to problems and anomalies as they happen. Could NASA have ID’d a problem, fixed it, got the count down restarted and got the bird inthe air before the launch window closed like SpaceX did on one of the early Falcon 9 tests? I don’t think so. For every glitch, SpaceX is learning and they remain highly adaptable. I live about 25 miles away from their engine test facility in McGregor, TX and you run into their folks all the time here in town. It’s a small crew, no more than a couple of hundred people, doing the tests. They are all seriously vested in SpaceX’s future.
I ran into the wife of one of the engineer’s here at my son’s birthday party and she told me something astonishing. When they were out at Kwajilin (sp???) they only had a crew of 20-30 peole setting up the launch. LockMart would bring several hundred and it would take them 4 times as long to do anything…
To be fair, the NASA of the Apollo era did provide some miraculous fixes – Apollo 13 comes to mind.
But I assume you are comparing the problem fixing ability of SpaceX to the *current* NASA.
Greg, I’m only about an hour away, and have been trying to visit one of their test fires.. I would especially love to see a Grasshopper test. Is there a way to find out the test schedule, or at least advance notification of test fires?
I had a long conversation with a SpaceX employee at the National Space Symposium a couple years ago. We discussed how quickly they addressed the uncommanded roll on liftoff issue that happened on the first Falcon 9 launch. He said that because almost everything is made in-house, they knew it was a SpaceX problem. According to him, they addressed the issue as a company and fixed it. That approach seldom happens in traditional companies that use components out-sourced from all over the place. In those companies, finger-pointing and CYA are more the norm. To me, this bodes well for SpaceX.
If you notice, they seldom have the same problem twice. Look at their history:
1. First Falcon 1 failed less than a minute after liftoff with the problem traced to corrosion. They fixed it.
2. Second Falcon 1 failed after the second stage started coning. They fixed it.
3. Third Falcon 1 failed after the stages bumped at separation due to residual thrust. They fixed it and the last 2 Falcon 1 flights were successful.
4. First Falcon 9 flight was successful but had uncommanded roll at liftoff. They fixed it and it hasn’t happened again.
5. Third Falcon 9 flight had an engine fail. They appear to have fixed it.
If past performance is an indicator of future performance, the thruster issue on this flight isn’t likely to happen again. It’s quite possible some other glitches will happen but SpaceX has proven itself able to fix problems. The next flight is the first Falcon 9 V1.1, which is really a new vehicle. It’ll be interesting to see how well that one works.
I think this demonstrate why there will be a need for shakedown cruises of any manned ship planning to leave the vicinity of earth. That ship should be put in orbit now (use the current Dragon to get people there and back) and would be a profitable destination before ever leaving orbit (if Bigelow is correct.)
It would not be available for use by Inspiration Mars in five years, even if launched today, but it does need to be launched as soon as possible because it creates a new fuel to orbit market as well.
But imagine if it were. Then you could do a flyby of mars with six which would provide a more useful test of psychological stress with better capability of handling any problems should they come up.
SpaceX is gaining experience. Other companies should consider gaining their type of experience as well. It can’t be just Bigelow. It can’t just be suborbital.
Put a general purpose ship in orbit now for about $200m. How do we raise the money?
What is a “general purpose” ship? The shuttle was supposed to be general-purpose, and it became a monstrosity that didn’t do anything well. Joint Strike Fighter is another example.
Far better is modularity. Make modules that can connect together in orbit to give you a range of capabilities that no single “general purpose” ship can match. It is the connections that are important; standardize those and publish the standards, then anyone can make modules. That’s what pushed the IBM PC to early market dominance -anyone could make peripherals.
This is a big reason that I like Kerbal Space Program. The game is built around modules that the player assembles and then launches. The game is still in development, and the development is largely driven by the players, as anyone can contribute modules. There are even analogues of SpaceX vehicles available to play with. Highly recommended that everyone here check it out.
My nephew is hooked on Kerbal Space Program. I tried to show him Orbiter and MS Space Simulator, but he wasn’t having it. I guess they’re old people software at this point.
I understand your point. I even consider RobotGuy’s Lego’s so significant that I link to that post specifically in the general links of my blog. My definition of GP does not mean “Do everything, badly.” My definition is “Not mission specific.” For example, for $200m (rather than billions) you launch a BA330 and keep the Merlin vacuum and tankage of the upper stage… What have you got? Up to six crew to anywhere in the inner solar system (just add bags of fuel.) With less crew, perhaps to the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. You can send supplies and landers ahead separately for any destination.
You can make other ships, but that one can get lot’s of use even after you have modular or mission specific ships. Starting at a low cost and amortized lower over time. That’s what I’m calling GPS.
A modular ship, like the Apollo, keeps everything together so you can’t send parts on more fuel efficient paths. I understand Apollo isn’t the modular you meant, but that’s what it was.
The shuttle isn’t. Design by committee is not what I mean when I say GP.
Mission specific, could be a BA330 launched directly to mars on a free return using something larger than a FH, but including a lander with an orbital insertion module. That’s not GP but specific because that BA330 isn’t going anyway but that loop and if retrieved would have to be outfitted for whatever it did next.
Perhaps a simpler definition is a ship to take crew from any orbit to any orbit. Specific missions would have other hardware waiting in orbit. It would have ion drives to return the ship home if the crew left for colonization or whatever.
The BA330 is 23mt. The BA2100 is too big to launch on a FH. I hope Bigelow creates a 40mt BA700 with life support for 24. Now that would be a general purpose ship. With crew and supplies, dry mass would be 100mt.
Even if you define a general purpose vehicle as one that can go from any orbit to any orbit, there are still some complicating factors. For example, you have to design your vehicle to withstand the worst case radiation environment of any orbit you plan to visit. You also have to use the same worst case conditions for electrical power generation and thermal considerations.
Suppose you want your GP vehicle to be able to travel to any planet from Venus to Jupiter. You have to factor for the high radiation environment at Jupiter which would be sufficient for any of the other planets. However, the thermal and electrical power conditions are very different between Venus and Jupiter. You’ll receive a lot more energy from the sun at Venus than at the Earth, Mars or Jupiter and that impacts the design of your electrical power system and thermal control systems. At Venus, solar power is easy but at Jupiter, not so much. At Venus, you have to worry about overheating while at Jupiter, your concern is freezing. Designing one vehicle to handle all of those conditions should be possible but quite challenging.
Larry, that’s the problem with too rigid a definition. I wouldn’t consider driving my car at Indianapolis, but it is GP as far as going to the grocery store.
Suppose you did take a GP ship to Jupiter. You could visit some moons, and others at certain times during their orbits, without too much concern for Jupiter’s radiation belts.
On the other hand, I can put snow tires on my GP car.
Then there’s the poo solution.
My point, Ken, is that it’s a lot harder than it seems to design a functional multi-destination spacecraft. Every spacecraft is a series of compromises. What works well at one destination, such as Mars, is inadequate for another destination. To be truly multi-destination, you have to design for the worse case conditions of all possible destinations.
The radiation environment in orbit around Jupiter is quite harsh. At the same time, you only get a fraction of the energy from the sun as you’d get elsewhere. That drives both your thermal management issues (to keep things thawed and at a survivable temperature) and your electrical production needs. While solar panels would be adequate for the inner planets, they’re unlikely to be sufficient for Jupiter. So, you’d either need very large solar panels or perhaps a nuclear generator to function there. You’re also at very great distances from the Earth so your communications data rates would either be low or you’d need a larger dish antenna. Longer mission times would require more consumables capability and higher reliability levels. Different destinations require different levels of delta-v to enter and leave orbit as well.
At the other end, if your destination is Mercury or Venus, you’ll have higher solar radiation levels to deal with but that would mean solar panels would work well. You’d have extra heating from the sun to keep the temperatures under control.
You’d be better off designing a reusable vehicle tailored to the requirements of each destination. Reusing components to the extent possible will help to keep R&D costs down.
Lars, yes, I was referring to NASA as it is now.
Mopoppe, to keep their neighbors from freaking out (it’s happened a few times ). SpaceX usually announces when the are testing in the Waco Trib and on the local tv stations (KCEN or KWTX) and I think on their own webpage. We usually get a day’s warning….
I’ve been practically living at NASASpaceflight.com since Friday morning. What a thrilling, nail-biting, and ultimately inspiring day.
I gave a brief synopsis of events here.
I wonder if the treats from the orchard are apples? Every Russian I know loves apples.