April 30, SpaceX 9 Mission Launch....

[The Annoyed Man]

WHOOP!

Here is the story on ABC News written by the science writer from AP who contacted me. The "Bob Shrake" mentioned in the article is my father in law.

http://abcn.ws/L3OOeO

[discoqueen]

What a great story.

[The Annoyed Man]

Original story on AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 2-19-24-57

The picture from the article, Bob is on the top right:


Here is the launch video:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=4vkqBfv8OMM[/youtube]

A great still shot taken from the video:

[sjfcontrol]

That's really cool! Stupid question of the morning -- I gather these are unmanned flights?

[The Annoyed Man]

That's really cool! Stupid question of the morning -- I gather these are unmanned flights?

They are right now. The Dragon capsule is currently configured to haul freight to the International Space Station. However, it can be configured to carry up to 7 astronauts at a time—either to or from the ISS. One of the astronauts currently on the ISS will be one of the first to come home via the Dragon capsule. I saw him interviewed about it yesterday.

[sjfcontrol]

That's really cool! Stupid question of the morning -- I gather these are unmanned flights?

They are right now. The Dragon capsule is currently configured to haul freight to the International Space Station. However, it can be configured to carry up to 7 astronauts at a time—either to or from the ISS. One of the astronauts currently on the ISS will be one of the first to come home via the Dragon capsule. I saw him interviewed about it yesterday.

How does it land? Surely we're not going back to splashdowns, does it come in like the shuttle?

[The Annoyed Man]

That's really cool! Stupid question of the morning -- I gather these are unmanned flights?

They are right now. The Dragon capsule is currently configured to haul freight to the International Space Station. However, it can be configured to carry up to 7 astronauts at a time—either to or from the ISS. One of the astronauts currently on the ISS will be one of the first to come home via the Dragon capsule. I saw him interviewed about it yesterday.

How does it land? Surely we're not going back to splashdowns, does it come in like the shuttle?

The initial launch tests of the Falcon 9/Dragon system had the Dragon capsule splashing down in the Pacific (drop test video from 14,000 ft into the Pacific), but that isn't the ultimate goal. I think it will eventually come down on land like the Soyuz does. The SpaceX website has videos which show future versions of both the launch vehicle and the capsule as being able to return to earth and land softly using retro-rocket motors. I don't know how feasible that is, but SpaceX is pretty bold about putting that stuff out for the public to view if they aren't certain that they'll be able to achieve it at some point down the road.

Here's a CG video of the concept from their website: http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=0.

The next rocket on SpaceX's development arc will be the Falcon Heavy: http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=2. Falcon Heavy will have almost as much lift capacity as a Saturn V—twice as much as the current American heavy lift vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy, and equal to the thrust of 15 747s at full power—and will be able to put 53 metric tons of payload into earth orbit. In other words, SpaceX is dead serious about being a major player on the global aerospace stage.

[sjfcontrol]

WOW! TAM, that's some seriously cool stuff. Makes the space shuttle look like something from the 1980's

[The Annoyed Man]

WOW! TAM, that's some seriously cool stuff. Makes the space shuttle look like something from the 1980's

The Shuttle was something from the 1970s, that began flying in the 1980s. Seriously though, the Shuttle was awesome, and it was a great idea. An aging fleet and the costs aside, the main problem with it from my own point of view is that, as long as the Shuttle was the centerpiece of the American space program, man would never go beyond earth orbit. When President Bush pushed for the development of the Orion rocket system, new lunar missions, and an eventual mission to Mars, he spoke it out of the same spirit as Jack Kennedy when he committed the U.S. to landing on the moon within a decade. When Obama killed it, he betrayed a small-minded shortsightedness and meanness of spirit and a complete lack of understanding about the benefits that we enjoy daily which came out of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs.

• Long range weather forecasting
• Weather satellite storm predictions
• Satellite navigation and communication
• Advanced materials for aircraft
• International TV broadcasts
• Satellite imagery for crop management and resource mapping
• Solar power electricity generation
• Ultrasound scanners
• Laser surgery
• Energy saving HVAC
• Flat panel TVs
• Instant infrared thermometers
• CAT scanners
• High density batteries
• Powerful microcomputers
• Long distance telephone networks
• Wireless alarms
• Food processing controls
• Water purification systems
• Advanced structural designs now used in bridges, buildings, trains, shops, turbines, etc.
• Programmable pacemakers
• Automatic insulin pumps
• Car phones
• Environmentally safe sewage treatment
• Radiation blocking sunglasses
• Dry film machinery lubrication
• Improved automotive chassis and brake designs
• Protective clothing (Nomex, etc.)
• Firefighting breathing apparatus
• Shock absorbing athletic shoes
• Heart monitors
• Thin super-insulating blankets

The list goes on and on, and all of these things descended directly from the space program at some point. It is ultimately foolish to think that you're helping society by killing off space programs. If government is going to get out of the space business, then they should get entirely out of it and step aside and get out of the way of companies like SpaceX and others. If government is going to insist on controlling it, then they should show some vision, some heart, and some courage, and get behind it all the way.

If you stop and think about it....right now, at this point in history, we are 100% dependent on Russian good will get our astronauts into space, or to bring them home. THAT, as much as anything else, should illustrate just how feckless the Obama administration has been with regard to trying to keep the U.S. at the forefront of technology.

[n5wd]

If you stop and think about it....right now, at this point in history, we are 100% dependent on Russian good will get our astronauts into space, or to bring them home. THAT, as much as anything else, should illustrate just how feckless the Obama administration has been with regard to trying to keep the U.S. at the forefront of technology.

Except for one minor detail. Mr. Bush killed the Shuttle back in 2004 when he said:

To meet this goal, we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle -- after nearly 30 years of duty -- will be retired from service.

You can read Mr. Bush's entire Jan 14, 2004 speech here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404

And, an essay on why Mr. Bush's decision was the only one that could be made, in light of the Challenger accident at: http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/04/wh ... uttle.html ... the bottom line is that the mounting of the Shuttle on the side of the lift-off body was inherently a problem.

[WildBill]

If you stop and think about it....right now, at this point in history, we are 100% dependent on Russian good will get our astronauts into space, or to bring them home. THAT, as much as anything else, should illustrate just how feckless the Obama administration has been with regard to trying to keep the U.S. at the forefront of technology.

Except for one minor detail. Mr. Bush killed the Shuttle back in 2004 when he said:

To meet this goal, we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle -- after nearly 30 years of duty -- will be retired from service.

The ending of the Space Shuttle program was inevitable.

Think about it. Would you take a cross country trip in a 30 year old vehicle that had 30,000,000 miles on the speedometer?

IMO, the big mistake was to cancel the Constellation program and not replacing the Space Shuttle with a more advanced and modern system.

[The Annoyed Man]

If you stop and think about it....right now, at this point in history, we are 100% dependent on Russian good will get our astronauts into space, or to bring them home. THAT, as much as anything else, should illustrate just how feckless the Obama administration has been with regard to trying to keep the U.S. at the forefront of technology.

Except for one minor detail. Mr. Bush killed the Shuttle back in 2004 when he said:

To meet this goal, we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle -- after nearly 30 years of duty -- will be retired from service.

You can read Mr. Bush's entire Jan 14, 2004 speech here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404

And, an essay on why Mr. Bush's decision was the only one that could be made, in light of the Challenger accident at: http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/04/wh ... uttle.html ... the bottom line is that the mounting of the Shuttle on the side of the lift-off body was inherently a problem.

You misread my post. I said:

The Shuttle was something from the 1970s, that began flying in the 1980s. Seriously though, the Shuttle was awesome, and it was a great idea. An aging fleet and the costs aside, the main problem with it from my own point of view is that, as long as the Shuttle was the centerpiece of the American space program, man would never go beyond earth orbit. When President Bush pushed for the development of the Orion rocket system, new lunar missions, and an eventual mission to Mars, he spoke it out of the same spirit as Jack Kennedy when he committed the U.S. to landing on the moon within a decade. When Obama killed it, he betrayed a small-minded shortsightedness and meanness of spirit and a complete lack of understanding about the benefits that we enjoy daily which came out of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs.

I never accused Bush of killing anything. I implied that it was time for the Shuttle to end, and I said that Bush had the foresight to push for Orion and a Mars Mission. Obama killed that. And, until SpaceX can start carrying astronauts, which is expected to be some time in 2015 (if everything goes right), so it is true that we are dependent on Russia to ferry our astronauts until SpaceX comes online. Whether that part is Bush's or Obama's fault, it is still shortsighted because it presumes the Russians to be benevolent, and they're not............at least as long as ol' Pooty-Poot is in charge.

Anway, came back to the thread to post this: http://www.space.com/15939-spacex-drago ... cific.html