years from now, maybe even decades, people will look back on videos like this and see the birth of private commercial space travel. It will be more transformative and important than the launch of commercial planes.
For the first time since Apollo, it seems humanity is making great strides to leave its cradle, the Earth.
Is it still lifting perpendicular to the Earth by 3:00? It looks like it on the left, but the video is so low-res, it's hard to tell, but the video on the right makes it look like it's moving almost parallel to the surface...
@Konraden The direction from which the launch of the vehicle is imaged always plays a part. And the low resolution is because of the telelenses used to acquire that image. The onboard camera gives a better view of the angle compared to Earth, it is also shown there. Once the vehicle has cleared most of the atmosphere, it will be tilted to acquire orbital velocity. The first stage is usually jettisoned at this point. The burn for orbit is just as important as the launch above atmosphere
i miss being on the team i want to hop on a machine and just bend tubes for spacex for the rest of my life. space x rules... if u know who i am email me at jevingee@hotmail.com. plz only spacex employes
it was so exiting and shocking that we pulled it off first try pefectly. i have never been. so happy and proud of not just myself but for all of the people that had part in the making and hard work... Everyone that i worked along side of gave a shit that works for spacex and are so happy and seriose about the quality of our work. i want to say thanks to louis and garret and dennis and most of all randy smth.
can someone tell me how spacex is a profitable venture, i can see the possibility of profitability in the future through helium 3 mining on the moon, but currently i can only assume that its being subsidized by NASA, or NASA is paying spacex for launches, if this is so, what is the cost benefit of having a private space exploration company? why isnt nasa just doing this shit, or better yet, why not combine funding and have an international space program
@burn435353 Because "NASA" has not done anything besides project management and some design work. It was ALWAYS subcontractors under their guidance who built stuff. NASA is not in the business of rocket building. Never was. It was always Boeing, Martin, Loral, Grumman, etc.
You also appear clueless about politics and pork. An international program always has member countries each wanting to do their thing, to appease their own politics. It's counterproductive at best.
@kubarebo you seriously think if we had an international effort, that different countries would biker over bragging rights? and not tout the international effort as a glimpse of a global society coming together and leaving earth? plus when is the last time any politician got anywhere by using the space program as a form of popular appeasement? and if space x is still building shit for nasa, with nasa's funding, then why is this any more efficient the what rockwell international did
@burn435353 Judging by all major international efforts so far, yes, different countries would all pull the strings their own way. It's not about bickering though, usually. Leaving the Earth doesn't get people elected, not that I'm happy about that. SpaceX is NOT building for anyone but themselves. They offer launch *services* to NASA and other clients. It's quite and arms-length deal. NASA is but one of their customers. You can look at their public launch manifest yourself.
@burn435353 Why is this more efficient than legacy vendors? Because they charge two+ times less per pound to orbit as of now, and they do real engineering to bring this further down. That's why. It's a big win for the taxpayer. You'd know all this if you bothered to watch their press conference. It's really worth watching.
We need an international space agency similar to that of the UN where countries can invest together in space exploration instead of trying to go about it by themselves. Therefor you could have small countries that dont have the need for a national space agency invest in space and their peoples future and education we could develop the start of a moon base by 2020, asteroid by 2025 and mars by 2030. Imagine what we would look like in 2100.
@nateextreme0969 That looks all fine on paper and nowhere else. It's wholly infeasible. It won't work because, ultimately, people and politics are in the way. So it's a beautiful pipe dream.
@kubarebo Why do you think the Government is basically invading across the world into smaller countries , because they have to like you said make sure everyones somewhat near the same idea before they all group up. I Totally agree.. but that doesn't mean it won't happen it just takes People to actually talk things out instead of pulling a gun out first comment said, alot of things need to happen but they are put into play and are slowly happening. Change is good i don't know how it was ever bad.
While it is better than the shuttle in terms of cost / etc, it needs a sexy paint job like the Saturn IB. The countdown guy also needs his voice modulated to sound cooler. Sound silly, but it's all great PR. Maybe dark blue / white instead of black / white like the older rockets. Something to give it that little extra pizazz that the US always has :-)
I'm all for SpaceX but they REALLY need to start ramping up their launch rate. Elon talks of 20 launches a year but right now they are operating at about 1 launch per year. I know for a fact ORBCOMM is starting to get a little antsy about the schedule. Gedder done!
I like private sector, but sometimes, they cannot do certain things. Imagine leave it up to them to save the Apollo 13 astronauts. 3 tiny humans, blaahhh, they are not worth it. Just leave them in outer space.
For prime examples of how the Shuttle is used for such missions, it handled Galileo, a 3 ton Jupiter probe, Magellan a 1 ton Venus probe, and Ulysses, a 2 ton solar observatory. Galileo and Ulysses used STAR-63 upper stages, while Magellan used an IUS. Falcon 9 could not handle any of these, due to the lack of a high energy stage. Once SpaceX develops it's high energy upper stage, by their own estimates to be ready by 2018, then they will be more than capable of such work. Until then, LEO only
Hmmm come to think of it anyone who uses paypal is funding this program. There must be a bolt on that thing with my name on it :) Keep up the amazing work because according to 2001 a space odyssey we got alot of catching up to do.
Is that charring soot or a shadow at 04:18 on the first stage? I hope SpaceX can start saving first stages would help keep launch costs down for F9 and the inevitable F9H.
@blist14ant Define better. Less upmass, seemingly slower turnaround. The only real advantage thus far is cost, and that's only because of the reduced payload and size.
@spacevidcast it may be a smaller payload at a significant reduced cost, but in comparison they are developing at a rate that will put them way ahead of NASA within a couple of decades
@spacevidcast NASA is junk now a days. Its just better letting competition make the advancements. After the soviet union collapsed space competition died off. The private sector can bring space exploration back to life.
I think you can stick a fork in NASA, thank God. They were expensive, inefficient, and gave all our technology to the Red-Chinese. The private sector will be the ones to colonize the moon and hold it down. They'll also probably be the first to have a successful manned mission to Mars unless the government wants to starve us all to do it.
@MegaAstrodude Dude, if NASA committed its yearly budget 100% to Mars right now, we could have astronauts there by 2018. The government would not have to starve anyone. Although they could probably stand to end a huge war or two. And stop corporate bailouts in the trillion-dollar range.
" Dude, if NASA committed its yearly budget 100% to Mars right now, we could have astronauts there by 2018."
Maybe, but NASA couldn't make a Mars mission profitable. Only private companies could ultimately colonize other places for profit. This is a time tested fact. The Spanish government used government funding to colonize and their colonies sucked and still suck. The English settlers used joint-stock companies and the United States resulted.
@MegaAstrodude Um, no. NASA isn't going anywhere. It's a fact. For starters it's one of the more well liked Federal programs. Anyone like the IRS? *crickets* Americans are proud of their space program and for good reason. We done some absolutely amazing things. 18 billion dollars IS a lot a money but it's far less than 1% of the ENTIRE federal budget. NASA might not be manning spacecraft but the organization has a lot on it's plate. R&D, robotics, planetary missions, etc. NASA lives.
@MegaAstrodude So are all the colonists who follow his footstep, including those who founded the USA. Deeply in debt, no jobs, gigantic carbon footprints, drugs problems etc.
"Deeply in debt, no jobs, gigantic carbon footprints, drugs problems etc."
Yeah now, after importing degenerate ideas from other countries. The US at least was productive for two centuries. The Spanish Empire was never particularly productive.
Plus, even today, the US is still 4 to 5 times better than the best Spanish former colony of significant size; excluding the colonies that joined the US of course.
@MegaAstrodude NASA cant colonize space because thats not really their mission. They will blaze the trail for others to follow, providing the know-how, technology, funding perhaps in the form of commercial contracts, and early vehicles to start the process. But really, how can NASA colonize space when they have a no-sex in space policy? :P
NASA also isn't capable or willing to defend it's position in space from Communist Chinese attacks on our satellites. Only a private company would protect its assets and fight.
@spacevidcast Orion: Cost: Billions Development Time: 10 years + Crew: 4 Status: In development Dragon: Cost: 55 million Development Time: 7 years Crew: 7 Status: Flown And it's lighter. Falcon 9: 20 million $ per passenger Soyuz: 55 million $ per passenger STS: More than that xD I think it's obvious. Private sector does things better. They have to work for their money, there's competition, and incentive to do a cheap, good job. Government doesn't have that. (But I do love the STS)
@spacevidcast less cost of development. Faster rate of progress. Less stagnation. Less bureaucracy. Moving towards an ultimate goal of commercialising and privatizing space. Reducing overall costs, launch costs. Taking risks to do revolutionary things which the public sector isn't able to do. just to name a few things
@blist14ant Falcon 9 has had two launches. Total payload capability for those two, 18 tons. The shuttle lifts almost twice that, as does Delta IV. It's still too soon to tell.
That being said, I'm looking forward to the Taurus II next year.
@spacevidcast And after all Falcon 9 is a medium lift launcher and produced without Billions in subsidies, that does tent to make a difference to turnaround times.
@spacevidcast Not to argumentative but when a shuttle launch costs over a billion dollars in total cost I don't think it can be compared to other more cost efficient methods. If that amount of money, from even a single launch, went into further development of cheaper methods they could be sped up even more as well. Payload may be less but launching a few smaller rockets in some instances is easier, and with economies of scale even cheaper. Plus you lose less if you have a failure.
Compared to how long it took to develop the Atlas V and Delta 4 on government contracts and the price tags for them per launch, SpaceX has been doing very well, I would wait a few years to see if they really can keep the price down before say NASA is officially dead, but at present its not looking good for NASA, decades of legislative cuts, underfunding and cronism have taken there toll, you can't deny that at least!
@pointmanzero The Heavy won't match the Shuttle system. It can launch either the payload, *or* the crew, but not both at once. It's an amazing system, won't argue there, just trying to keep things in perspective. It's a launch system, not a spaceship like the Shuttle.
And note, the Shuttle is not 4-5 times the cost, per kg.
@downix but two launches of the falcon is still cheaper then one launch of the shuttle. AND the shuttles are old... like really old. Older then our cars.
@pointmanzero -- Not true. The estimated cost of a Falcon 9 Heavy is only marginally less than a Shuttle incidental cost. Two of them would cost more.
The issue of discussing the Shuttles cost is that NASA puts a lot of it's operating budget into the Shuttle program, artificially inflating it's cost to operate. I can't officially tell you the real costs, but the closest thing I can say is, two Falcon 9 Heavies would be a tad more expensive. The Shuttles R&D is long paid for.
@pointmanzero -- The Shuttles are not ancient. Air frames are measured in miles flown. Discovery has the most miles flown at this time, and it is only at 1/3rd of it's airframes retirement point, which itself is only half what the airframe itself can take. Endeavour is not even at 1/10th of it's lifetime use. As for computers, they use an IBM 5150, which is more powerful than the Soyuz Argon 15 computer. The original plan was for the last Shuttle flight to occur in 2035.
@pointmanzero -- You gather wrong. The Shuttle was mutated into something it was never designed to be, and has crippled our space program for 40 years as a result. But the issue is this heavy focus on Rockets. We don't need more Rockets, we have plenty, between Atlas, Delta, Falcon, and Taurus. We need spacecraft, but noone is focusing on that. Getting people up to, and down from, orbit is not the challenge, getting them to go somewhere, that's where the real effort needs to be.
@pointmanzero -- It is many things. It is a rocket, a spaceship, a glider. It is a very cost efficient system. And I'm not the one building it, if you'd been paying attention for the past few years, that is where everything is headed. The new high-power space engines, the transhab derived inflatable habitats, the deep space storable propellant systems, capsules able to operate for years in deep space. The parts are falling into place, faster than I think people realize.
@pointmanzero -- No, Falcon 9 is less capable than the Shuttle in this regards. It cannot go to the moon, it lacks a high-energy upper stage. Not until SpaceX finishes development of the Raptor upper stage will they be lunar capable. This, of course, is not going to happen until close to 2020 by the current schedule. The Falcon 9's current upper stage is a heavy thrust, low energy system, fine for LEO and GTO work, but incapable of lunar operation. ULA's Atlas and Delta are our Lunar rockets
@pointmanzero SpaceX is landing a 340kg lunar rover, compare that to LCROSS, weighing in at just under 3 tons, or the LRO at 1.8 metric tons. And both of those were launched with the weakest of NASA's rockets, the Atlas 401. The Atlas 552, by comparison, could throw a fully loaded Falcon 9 upper stage at the moon.
I was in error about the Falcon 9's lunar mass, it's 448kg, not 540kg.
Incidentally, the other COTS launcher, Taurus II, has a high energy stage option already. Only SpaceX lacks one
@pointmanzero -- Before I forget, compare the Atlas, Shuttle, and Falcon 9's lunar orbit insertion capacity:
Atlas V - 10 metric tons
Shuttle - 12 metric tons
Falcon 9 - 540 kilograms
As it is now, Falcon 9 is a solid low earth orbit lift vehicle. To move beyond that will require either a high energy upper stage, as both the Atlas and Shuttle have, or a long term storable hypergolic engine, as the Russians have used for years and the Shuttle also uses. SpaceX is a newcomer, it will take time.
@pointmanzero The shuttle orbiter empty weighs 150,000 lbs without the SSME's (and 172,000 lbs with them installed), so you're already getting your numbers wrong
@pointmanzero -- The Shuttle is not a lunar capable craft. I am talking what each launcher, as is, can deliver to lunar space. The Shuttle's RS-25 engines (SSME) are high-energy, and can put the shuttle into a very high-energy parabolic orbit. The Shuttles OME engines are Hypergolic, and can further enhance this orbit. Add in either a Star payload delivery system or a Centaur, and the Shuttle can, from it's launch bay, get a very heavy payload heading in the moons direction.
@blist14ant Correct, consider the funding to nasa and funding to spacex. If you talk money, we shouldn't be able to accomplish 100th of what Nasa can do - but somehow it happened
@blist14ant I'm with the other guy. An inspired society behind the project does much better than self-interested stock holders. The government just faces more criticism and negative image from the press. BTW, if we hadn't gotten invested as a nation in the first place, conservative business-types would still be mocking space flight, and all of the technology that they are using now wouldn't even exist or it would be the purview of other nations.
I don't like it when people come in starting these arguments about whether public or private space enterprises are "better". They never define what they mean by "better". It's a worthless argument since the private sector and the public sector of space exploration are VERY intertwined and codependent. It's also too early to make an evaluation of SpaceX as a standalone entity. I wish people like that would just sit back, enjoy the launches and, pardon my French, STFU.
@unholyimage no douht but the stock holders run NASA as well, they want to cancel the james Web telescope now........... If more millionaires, hell billionaires Invested their money into this they would fly by nasa and make space cheaper and cheaper for the normal civilians, Nasa is all science awesome no douht but they arent working towards civilian space travel these guys can do that job for them and do it cheaper this is the future.
@blist14ant Forgive me for my unfamiliarity with the subject, but aren't both the Atlas V and the Delta IV of the EELV program developed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, with federal funding? Is EELV for federal and defense use only, or can private companies pay to have satellites launched?
Delta 4 is exclusively boeing parts mostly. Atlas V is manufactered by both companies.
The whole EELV program is government funded. So private companies work alone. They do buy high tech parts from companies such as lockheed martin but thats on own cost. The design itself is related and manufactered by space X only.
The interesting thing about SpaceX is that they are very successful. The first Falcon 9 launch was flaweless beside that roll issue of the sceond stage. The first Dragon test flight was a total successful even more, which I did not expect to be honest. And Dragon even looks quite well after reentry. I expected it to look way more burned.
SpaceX is very productive by less money than NASA. SpaceX's future looks promising. They already got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history.
One interesting note. If we can have 17 Falcon9 launches for the price of one Shuttle. That is 119 people in space vs only 7 people with shuttle. Based on 3 Shuttle missions a year that could be 51 Falcon9 missions or 357 people.
@ti994apc I don't really think that we can get 17 "manned" Falcon 9 launches for the price of one Shuttle launch. Once NASA would be responsable for sending astronauts to the ISS by using Falcon 9, costs and delays will rise due to all of those NASA requirements. Remember that NASA is a big bloated governmental agency. However, once manned, Falcon 9 still will be way less expensive than the Shuttle.
You can't power launch a Dragon to orbit using only Dragons systems without a launcher. You cannot achieve the required needed velocity. He is clearly referring to powered landings such as the Russians are now working on not powered flight to orbit. It's not possible. You need a much bigger and more powerful system such as Venture Star.
@cixelsyD1988, I easily can say yes to that question. The fact that Falcon9 does not use solid rocket fuel is first and foremost with safety. That means that unlike Shuttle and Ares, Falcon9 can turn any of its 9 engines off mid flight. Also, it has a way to abort, unlike Shuttle because Dragon is mounted on top of the rocket rather than parallel to the main fuel tank. Also, Dragon has better heat shield which is can re-enter from moon/ mars missions at much higher speeds.
@ti994apc It wasn't a trillion, and the reason the X-33 and VentureStar failed was because we didn't have the knowledge base or experience with composite wrapped pressure vessels at the time. And it wasn't designed to be an SSTO.
@ti994apc You're correct. I was wrong. I got some facts crossed...must be getting old. It's been quite a while since actually looking up info on the program.
@ti994apc So you believe a rocket is safe as long as it has 2 flights, and engine redudancy. I might add that a LES for falcon 9 hasn't been made yet (Musk said he needs money and 3 years from NASA to do so). Soyuz has 25 engines and has an escape system, doesn't mean its completely safe, it required many flights to work out all the issues. Not saying I dislike spacex, I think they're the future, but I think more than 2 flights are needed before saying something is completely fit for people
@cixelsyD1988 Soyuz has made 1000's of launches without a single death since 1971. I kind of look at Falcon9 as an improved Soyuz. Compare that to Shuttle where 1out 60 flights results in death. Your right, Falcon9 will need to make an escape system and work out any bugs they find. I hope we can get back to 1965 where we are launching at least once a month.
@EpiDemic117 All of the Soyuz fatalities were pre 1973 using an old design and all during re-entry. The Soyuz rocket has had something like 1,743 launches and a great record by percentage. The US rockets have only become more dangerous since 1965. The Gemini/Titan II was the safest man rated rocket the us ever had and Falcon9 should change that.
@EpiDemic117 Nope. Just like ti994apc already mentioned, Soyuz did not cause any fatality for 38 years now whilst launching more often than the Shuttle. The Shuttle program had two complete losses during the past 24 years, mission STS-51L (caused by mismanagement) and STS-107 (caused by a still existing design flaw), which killed 14 astronauts all in all. Without NASA's commitment of assembling the International Space Station, STS-107 would have been the final Shuttle flight quite likely.
@AirSimming the shuttle claimed more lives yes. But the failure rate is still the same. Only two orbiters failed and only two soyuz craft failed. The Shuttle does need to be retired though. The venture star was supposed to be it's replacement and would of held better safety than both the soyuz and shutttle combined. It behaves similar to that of a regular airplane and require FAR less maintenance than the shuttle. Sad thing is that the floored the damn project!
@AirSimming if the venture star were to become a reality it would of been the CHEAPEST method of sending a payload into space! and it's great because it didn't require any stages. just launch it and land it (it could even land it's self!)
@EpiDemic117 Not only the European Space Agency calls Soyuz the most reliable launch vehicle to date. Soyuz is that much reliable that even NASA chosed it as the primary crew transportation and supply vehicle for the International Space Station.
Russian technology is widely underestimated, which I think still is a remnant of the cold war anti-Soviet propaganda in our western media. The Russian Proton Rocket, which was also used to assemble the ISS, is one of the most successful heavy launcher.
@EpiDemic117 Not only the European Space Agency calls Soyuz the most reliable launch vehicle to date. Soyuz is that much reliable that even NASA chosed it as the primary crew transportation and supply vehicle for the International Space Station.
Russian technology is widely underestimated, which I think still is a remnant of the cold war anti-Soviet propaganda in our western media. The Russian Proton Rocket, which was also used to assemble the ISS, is one of the most successful heavy launcher.
There are alot of misstaments about Dragon 2. Dragon 2 will be used for Earth powered landings. It will land in a controled manner similar to how helicopters land on helipads using rocket motors. After landing, Dragon 2 will then be remounted on a new Falcon 9 and launched again. It will not be a self contained system that can take off reach orbit and land on it's own. It is mainly a pwered landing craft. The Russians are also working on a similar system.
Elon Musk was not talking about the "2nd Dragon". Powered landings are a medium to long term goal, I'm pretty sure the 2nd Dragon won't have that capability.
VentureStar/X-33 was canceled in 2001. So even if they had continued the development, I doubt they would have been in time to "safe" Columbia.
Elon Musk was not talking about the "2nd Dragon". Powered landings are a medium to long term goal, I'm pretty sure the 2nd Dragon won't have that capabillity.
VentureStar/X-33 was cancelled in 2001. So even if they had continued the development, I doubt they would have been in time to "safe" Columbia.
When are they going to start using the anti-gravity technology they've had for years, instead of these chemical rockets? It's sort of like driving a Model T from coast to coast instead of using a jet air plane...hmm.
There's just something incredibly romantic about watching the Earth dwindle away as the rocket flies into the blackness of space. I'm super excited about the continued success of SpaceX!
they're going to launch the new iridium satellite constellation with these rockets, should give them enough capital and tests to make human flights more realistic
All I can say is Falcon9 is so much safer and more practical than NASA's Ares and Shuttle. The press keeps calling Falcon9 "risky" but the average person at CNN, Foxnews, or MSNBC does not know the difference between solid rocket fuel and liquid fuel.
@greg12145 Ahh yes, I remember seeing that footage the day it happened. That was fairly quickly shown to be a bunch of white/silver balloons bought for a teacher at a nearby school, and she accidentally let go of one bunch of the four or so that her students bought for her. In some shots you see the balloons still together as a bunch, while in others you see them after they separate. Also explains why there is no 'good' footage - its hard to focus on small objects like balloons!
The links I gave you are from NEWS reporting the supposed UFO sightings... find it interesting with all the advanced technology that the camera is so blurry in this video!!! We have crisp HD technology and we get blur-vision from this master technology in space -- kind of funny eh!!!
Youtube should be called PUSSYTUBE!!! How many countless comments from non-pictured/named sources who don't do their homework but are QUICK ON THE DRAW with a nasty unresourced /non-researched comment!!!
Don't comment to me unitl you do some homework... so tired of YOUTUBE ASSHOLES who never do they're research/homework on anything but splatter out a host of PROFANITY as if that is evidence to support they're position.... PROFANITIES AREN'T FACTS.... watch the videos ASSHOLES!!!!
@ferrett78 Make an informed response/comment... not just a shoot-from-the-hip response/tirade that is unscourced... watch the other videos described in my other responses.
You just have to type in UFO Manhattan October 13.... and El Paso October 15... watch the videos.... the glowing balls make the triangle formation that you see on the right side at 4:33 and the 7:30 mark (along the Earth's horizon) to the Left of the screen... verify for yourself... not telling you anything they aren't telling you.... JUST NOTICE IT!!! You're being OUTRIGHT told there's a SECOND SYSTEM AT PLAY! Don't bother me until you check the videos out and notice the same formations
Then they make the same 3 Spaceship formation along the Earth's horizon around the 7 - 8 minute mark... They double the formation of 3 or 33.... October 13 is 33 days after 9/11 (amazing these are the 119 & 120th comments!!!
Nobody noticing the SPACESHIP formation of 3 at the right side.... at 4:33... 334 was on the first airplane that hit the TWIN TOWERS... they made the same formation over Manhattan on October 13/2010 and El Paso on October 15/2010... see the connection to 9/11!!! They do it right in front of ya!!! There's a whole different technology at work PEOPLE!!! And their watching the others play catch-up!!!
years from now, maybe even decades, people will look back on videos like this and see the birth of private commercial space travel. It will be more transformative and important than the launch of commercial planes.
For the first time since Apollo, it seems humanity is making great strides to leave its cradle, the Earth.
FreedomLiberty21 1 week ago
Is it still lifting perpendicular to the Earth by 3:00? It looks like it on the left, but the video is so low-res, it's hard to tell, but the video on the right makes it look like it's moving almost parallel to the surface...
Konraden 2 months ago
@Konraden The direction from which the launch of the vehicle is imaged always plays a part. And the low resolution is because of the telelenses used to acquire that image. The onboard camera gives a better view of the angle compared to Earth, it is also shown there. Once the vehicle has cleared most of the atmosphere, it will be tilted to acquire orbital velocity. The first stage is usually jettisoned at this point. The burn for orbit is just as important as the launch above atmosphere
pryletoncyo 2 months ago
Good work :)
Fly2Azeroth 2 months ago
i miss being on the team i want to hop on a machine and just bend tubes for spacex for the rest of my life. space x rules... if u know who i am email me at jevingee@hotmail.com. plz only spacex employes
MrLastnamegee 2 months ago
it was so exiting and shocking that we pulled it off first try pefectly. i have never been. so happy and proud of not just myself but for all of the people that had part in the making and hard work... Everyone that i worked along side of gave a shit that works for spacex and are so happy and seriose about the quality of our work. i want to say thanks to louis and garret and dennis and most of all randy smth.
MrLastnamegee 2 months ago 2
What was that explosion to the left of the rocket on takeoff?
ScientificExploits 3 months ago
@ScientificExploits It looks like the supply tower catches fire. There a dark plate there. It produces a black smoke.
pryletoncyo 2 months ago
it's ALL nominal
atlfundude 4 months ago
can someone tell me how spacex is a profitable venture, i can see the possibility of profitability in the future through helium 3 mining on the moon, but currently i can only assume that its being subsidized by NASA, or NASA is paying spacex for launches, if this is so, what is the cost benefit of having a private space exploration company? why isnt nasa just doing this shit, or better yet, why not combine funding and have an international space program
burn435353 5 months ago
@burn435353 Because "NASA" has not done anything besides project management and some design work. It was ALWAYS subcontractors under their guidance who built stuff. NASA is not in the business of rocket building. Never was. It was always Boeing, Martin, Loral, Grumman, etc.
You also appear clueless about politics and pork. An international program always has member countries each wanting to do their thing, to appease their own politics. It's counterproductive at best.
kubarebo 5 months ago
@kubarebo you seriously think if we had an international effort, that different countries would biker over bragging rights? and not tout the international effort as a glimpse of a global society coming together and leaving earth? plus when is the last time any politician got anywhere by using the space program as a form of popular appeasement? and if space x is still building shit for nasa, with nasa's funding, then why is this any more efficient the what rockwell international did
burn435353 5 months ago
@burn435353 Judging by all major international efforts so far, yes, different countries would all pull the strings their own way. It's not about bickering though, usually. Leaving the Earth doesn't get people elected, not that I'm happy about that. SpaceX is NOT building for anyone but themselves. They offer launch *services* to NASA and other clients. It's quite and arms-length deal. NASA is but one of their customers. You can look at their public launch manifest yourself.
kubarebo 5 months ago
@burn435353 Why is this more efficient than legacy vendors? Because they charge two+ times less per pound to orbit as of now, and they do real engineering to bring this further down. That's why. It's a big win for the taxpayer. You'd know all this if you bothered to watch their press conference. It's really worth watching.
kubarebo 5 months ago
All this rocket does is score touchdowns. And to think thought 9 engines in stage 1 would...well....NOT work.
Zoomer30 5 months ago
RP-1 feed line explodes at 1:06
fvgdfbdokd 6 months ago
Youtube video...............Nominal!!!!!!!
TheBloghead 6 months ago
We need an international space agency similar to that of the UN where countries can invest together in space exploration instead of trying to go about it by themselves. Therefor you could have small countries that dont have the need for a national space agency invest in space and their peoples future and education we could develop the start of a moon base by 2020, asteroid by 2025 and mars by 2030. Imagine what we would look like in 2100.
nateextreme0969 6 months ago
@nateextreme0969 That looks all fine on paper and nowhere else. It's wholly infeasible. It won't work because, ultimately, people and politics are in the way. So it's a beautiful pipe dream.
kubarebo 5 months ago
@kubarebo Why do you think the Government is basically invading across the world into smaller countries , because they have to like you said make sure everyones somewhat near the same idea before they all group up. I Totally agree.. but that doesn't mean it won't happen it just takes People to actually talk things out instead of pulling a gun out first comment said, alot of things need to happen but they are put into play and are slowly happening. Change is good i don't know how it was ever bad.
nateextreme0969 5 months ago
While it is better than the shuttle in terms of cost / etc, it needs a sexy paint job like the Saturn IB. The countdown guy also needs his voice modulated to sound cooler. Sound silly, but it's all great PR. Maybe dark blue / white instead of black / white like the older rockets. Something to give it that little extra pizazz that the US always has :-)
ModernGeek 6 months ago
Comment removed
ModernGeek 6 months ago
I'm all for SpaceX but they REALLY need to start ramping up their launch rate. Elon talks of 20 launches a year but right now they are operating at about 1 launch per year. I know for a fact ORBCOMM is starting to get a little antsy about the schedule. Gedder done!
fvgdfbdokd 7 months ago
@fvgdfbdokd Because they are still proving their vehicles. That's not a surprise to anyone, or shouldn't be if they know their stuff, at least.
kubarebo 5 months ago
Hmm, what was that flash of light from the location of the just seperated first stage booster?
wstraughn 7 months ago
@wstraughn That was the second stage firing.
ResolvingChaos 7 months ago
I like private sector, but sometimes, they cannot do certain things. Imagine leave it up to them to save the Apollo 13 astronauts. 3 tiny humans, blaahhh, they are not worth it. Just leave them in outer space.
merakhagen 7 months ago
the guy with the porn stach'e wasn't looking very nominal
kbp5520 8 months ago 4
This will be our new space shuttle. SpaceX is doing a good job for less. That's the way we want it.
TrickyEmu 9 months ago
@1944GPW - short, sweet and funny as hell.
mokeymina 9 months ago
nominal nomial nomial roger ! nominal
i want this job ,only i need to say nominal ,
Ganbala 10 months ago
this is so cool!!
karnavinash 10 months ago
The 9 heavy is due first flight 2013, SpaceX say 117,000 pounds (53 tonnes) to LEO at $1000/lb. Plus manned flight certified,
criskeys 10 months ago
LOL at 1:16 i thought it was some blue screen shit
LichKingpro 1 year ago
For prime examples of how the Shuttle is used for such missions, it handled Galileo, a 3 ton Jupiter probe, Magellan a 1 ton Venus probe, and Ulysses, a 2 ton solar observatory. Galileo and Ulysses used STAR-63 upper stages, while Magellan used an IUS. Falcon 9 could not handle any of these, due to the lack of a high energy stage. Once SpaceX develops it's high energy upper stage, by their own estimates to be ready by 2018, then they will be more than capable of such work. Until then, LEO only
downix 1 year ago
lol yes, thats how we great eachother
mab623 1 year ago
Historical!
hustlingtubes 1 year ago
Hmmm come to think of it anyone who uses paypal is funding this program. There must be a bolt on that thing with my name on it :) Keep up the amazing work because according to 2001 a space odyssey we got alot of catching up to do.
jdmdecal 1 year ago
Is that charring soot or a shadow at 04:18 on the first stage? I hope SpaceX can start saving first stages would help keep launch costs down for F9 and the inevitable F9H.
khanrhy 1 year ago
We are looking at the dawn of the commercialization of space!
raptors222222 1 year ago
EVERYBODY CHILL THE FUCK OUT! Everything is nominal.
DuhyatheSecond 1 year ago
face it the private sector does it better
blist14ant 1 year ago 48
@blist14ant Define better. Less upmass, seemingly slower turnaround. The only real advantage thus far is cost, and that's only because of the reduced payload and size.
spacevidcast 1 year ago
@spacevidcast it may be a smaller payload at a significant reduced cost, but in comparison they are developing at a rate that will put them way ahead of NASA within a couple of decades
memberHD 1 year ago
@spacevidcast NASA is junk now a days. Its just better letting competition make the advancements. After the soviet union collapsed space competition died off. The private sector can bring space exploration back to life.
PairoftheSocks 1 year ago
@spacevidcast,
I think you can stick a fork in NASA, thank God. They were expensive, inefficient, and gave all our technology to the Red-Chinese. The private sector will be the ones to colonize the moon and hold it down. They'll also probably be the first to have a successful manned mission to Mars unless the government wants to starve us all to do it.
MegaAstrodude 8 months ago
@MegaAstrodude Dude, if NASA committed its yearly budget 100% to Mars right now, we could have astronauts there by 2018. The government would not have to starve anyone. Although they could probably stand to end a huge war or two. And stop corporate bailouts in the trillion-dollar range.
bjac6790 8 months ago
@bjac6790,
" Dude, if NASA committed its yearly budget 100% to Mars right now, we could have astronauts there by 2018."
Maybe, but NASA couldn't make a Mars mission profitable. Only private companies could ultimately colonize other places for profit. This is a time tested fact. The Spanish government used government funding to colonize and their colonies sucked and still suck. The English settlers used joint-stock companies and the United States resulted.
MegaAstrodude 8 months ago
@MegaAstrodude Um, no. NASA isn't going anywhere. It's a fact. For starters it's one of the more well liked Federal programs. Anyone like the IRS? *crickets* Americans are proud of their space program and for good reason. We done some absolutely amazing things. 18 billion dollars IS a lot a money but it's far less than 1% of the ENTIRE federal budget. NASA might not be manning spacecraft but the organization has a lot on it's plate. R&D, robotics, planetary missions, etc. NASA lives.
laserfloyd 7 months ago
@laserfloyd,
Colonization of space is the ultimate future and there has never been a government funded colonization that succeeded.
MegaAstrodude 7 months ago
@MegaAstrodude Really? I wonder who funded Columbus.
merakhagen 7 months ago
@merakhagen,
Columbus was a failure. The entire Spanish empire was an epic failure.
MegaAstrodude 7 months ago
@MegaAstrodude So are all the colonists who follow his footstep, including those who founded the USA. Deeply in debt, no jobs, gigantic carbon footprints, drugs problems etc.
merakhagen 7 months ago
@merakhagen,
"Deeply in debt, no jobs, gigantic carbon footprints, drugs problems etc."
Yeah now, after importing degenerate ideas from other countries. The US at least was productive for two centuries. The Spanish Empire was never particularly productive.
Plus, even today, the US is still 4 to 5 times better than the best Spanish former colony of significant size; excluding the colonies that joined the US of course.
Bottom line: NASA can't colonize space.
MegaAstrodude 7 months ago
@MegaAstrodude NASA cant colonize space because thats not really their mission. They will blaze the trail for others to follow, providing the know-how, technology, funding perhaps in the form of commercial contracts, and early vehicles to start the process. But really, how can NASA colonize space when they have a no-sex in space policy? :P
Aturayd 7 months ago
@Aturayd,
" But really, how can NASA colonize space when they have a no-sex in space policy? :P"
That's a damn good question!
MegaAstrodude 7 months ago
@laserfloyd,
NASA also isn't capable or willing to defend it's position in space from Communist Chinese attacks on our satellites. Only a private company would protect its assets and fight.
MegaAstrodude 7 months ago
Eagle1Division2 6 months ago
@spacevidcast less cost of development. Faster rate of progress. Less stagnation. Less bureaucracy. Moving towards an ultimate goal of commercialising and privatizing space. Reducing overall costs, launch costs. Taking risks to do revolutionary things which the public sector isn't able to do. just to name a few things
eacao 5 months ago
@spacevidcast and almost forgot, after the falcon heavy, more mass to low earth orbit for a far lower cost.
eacao 5 months ago
@blist14ant Falcon 9 has had two launches. Total payload capability for those two, 18 tons. The shuttle lifts almost twice that, as does Delta IV. It's still too soon to tell.
That being said, I'm looking forward to the Taurus II next year.
downix 1 year ago 4
@downix STS can only haul 25metric tons of payload to a 28 degree orbit. Just under 20 metric tons to ISS (51.6 degree orbit).
spacevidcast 1 year ago 3
@spacevidcast And after all Falcon 9 is a medium lift launcher and produced without Billions in subsidies, that does tent to make a difference to turnaround times.
thedeviluknow 1 year ago
@spacevidcast Not to argumentative but when a shuttle launch costs over a billion dollars in total cost I don't think it can be compared to other more cost efficient methods. If that amount of money, from even a single launch, went into further development of cheaper methods they could be sped up even more as well. Payload may be less but launching a few smaller rockets in some instances is easier, and with economies of scale even cheaper. Plus you lose less if you have a failure.
sirachman 1 year ago
@spacevidcast
Compared to how long it took to develop the Atlas V and Delta 4 on government contracts and the price tags for them per launch, SpaceX has been doing very well, I would wait a few years to see if they really can keep the price down before say NASA is officially dead, but at present its not looking good for NASA, decades of legislative cuts, underfunding and cronism have taken there toll, you can't deny that at least!
frbe0101 8 months ago
@downix sure the shuttle launches twice that at 4-5 times the cost.
Im looking forward to the Falcon 9 Heavy.
Then we will see...
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@pointmanzero The Heavy won't match the Shuttle system. It can launch either the payload, *or* the crew, but not both at once. It's an amazing system, won't argue there, just trying to keep things in perspective. It's a launch system, not a spaceship like the Shuttle.
And note, the Shuttle is not 4-5 times the cost, per kg.
downix 1 year ago
@downix but two launches of the falcon is still cheaper then one launch of the shuttle. AND the shuttles are old... like really old. Older then our cars.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@pointmanzero -- Not true. The estimated cost of a Falcon 9 Heavy is only marginally less than a Shuttle incidental cost. Two of them would cost more.
The issue of discussing the Shuttles cost is that NASA puts a lot of it's operating budget into the Shuttle program, artificially inflating it's cost to operate. I can't officially tell you the real costs, but the closest thing I can say is, two Falcon 9 Heavies would be a tad more expensive. The Shuttles R&D is long paid for.
downix 1 year ago
@downix Ok, so two points. Two falcon 9 heavy launches would equal more then one shuttle launch yes?
So lets call the launch cost even then.
Second point. The shuttles are OLD. Ancient.
If we were to continue the shuttle program we would need to make newer ones.
I heard the shuttles were run by 486DX computers. This true?
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@pointmanzero -- The Shuttles are not ancient. Air frames are measured in miles flown. Discovery has the most miles flown at this time, and it is only at 1/3rd of it's airframes retirement point, which itself is only half what the airframe itself can take. Endeavour is not even at 1/10th of it's lifetime use. As for computers, they use an IBM 5150, which is more powerful than the Soyuz Argon 15 computer. The original plan was for the last Shuttle flight to occur in 2035.
downix 1 year ago
@downix From your responses I gather you have vested interest in the shuttle program.
Let it go. Both the shuttle and the Soyuz are out of date.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@pointmanzero -- You gather wrong. The Shuttle was mutated into something it was never designed to be, and has crippled our space program for 40 years as a result. But the issue is this heavy focus on Rockets. We don't need more Rockets, we have plenty, between Atlas, Delta, Falcon, and Taurus. We need spacecraft, but noone is focusing on that. Getting people up to, and down from, orbit is not the challenge, getting them to go somewhere, that's where the real effort needs to be.
downix 1 year ago
@downix You do realize the shuttle is just a rocket that can glide back down to a landing strip right?
Good luck building the starship enterprise.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@pointmanzero -- It is many things. It is a rocket, a spaceship, a glider. It is a very cost efficient system. And I'm not the one building it, if you'd been paying attention for the past few years, that is where everything is headed. The new high-power space engines, the transhab derived inflatable habitats, the deep space storable propellant systems, capsules able to operate for years in deep space. The parts are falling into place, faster than I think people realize.
downix 1 year ago
@downix The shuttle is not a spaceship. It is nothing but a very expensive taxi.
I can not go beyond earth orbit. It is a waste of time and money.
It is old and outdated.
The falcon 9 can go to the moon. Enough said.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@pointmanzero -- No, Falcon 9 is less capable than the Shuttle in this regards. It cannot go to the moon, it lacks a high-energy upper stage. Not until SpaceX finishes development of the Raptor upper stage will they be lunar capable. This, of course, is not going to happen until close to 2020 by the current schedule. The Falcon 9's current upper stage is a heavy thrust, low energy system, fine for LEO and GTO work, but incapable of lunar operation. ULA's Atlas and Delta are our Lunar rockets
downix 1 year ago
@downix Well thats interesting. Because SpaceX recently signed a deal to launch a lunar rover as soon as 2013.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@pointmanzero SpaceX is landing a 340kg lunar rover, compare that to LCROSS, weighing in at just under 3 tons, or the LRO at 1.8 metric tons. And both of those were launched with the weakest of NASA's rockets, the Atlas 401. The Atlas 552, by comparison, could throw a fully loaded Falcon 9 upper stage at the moon.
I was in error about the Falcon 9's lunar mass, it's 448kg, not 540kg.
Incidentally, the other COTS launcher, Taurus II, has a high energy stage option already. Only SpaceX lacks one
downix 1 year ago
@pointmanzero -- Before I forget, compare the Atlas, Shuttle, and Falcon 9's lunar orbit insertion capacity:
Atlas V - 10 metric tons
Shuttle - 12 metric tons
Falcon 9 - 540 kilograms
As it is now, Falcon 9 is a solid low earth orbit lift vehicle. To move beyond that will require either a high energy upper stage, as both the Atlas and Shuttle have, or a long term storable hypergolic engine, as the Russians have used for years and the Shuttle also uses. SpaceX is a newcomer, it will take time.
downix 1 year ago
@downix Then why do they claim the Atlas V can lift more than the shuttle?
Something tells me the shuttle's 12 tons includes the shuttle weight.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@pointmanzero The shuttle orbiter empty weighs 150,000 lbs without the SSME's (and 172,000 lbs with them installed), so you're already getting your numbers wrong
spacevidcast 1 year ago
@pointmanzero -- The Shuttle is not a lunar capable craft. I am talking what each launcher, as is, can deliver to lunar space. The Shuttle's RS-25 engines (SSME) are high-energy, and can put the shuttle into a very high-energy parabolic orbit. The Shuttles OME engines are Hypergolic, and can further enhance this orbit. Add in either a Star payload delivery system or a Centaur, and the Shuttle can, from it's launch bay, get a very heavy payload heading in the moons direction.
downix 1 year ago
@downix wat about the falcon heavy which is going to be as powerful as the saturn V rocket something that nasa is acouple years of returning 2.
nateextreme0969 6 months ago
@blist14ant Correct, consider the funding to nasa and funding to spacex. If you talk money, we shouldn't be able to accomplish 100th of what Nasa can do - but somehow it happened
luckycharmz336 1 year ago
@blist14ant I'm with the other guy. An inspired society behind the project does much better than self-interested stock holders. The government just faces more criticism and negative image from the press. BTW, if we hadn't gotten invested as a nation in the first place, conservative business-types would still be mocking space flight, and all of the technology that they are using now wouldn't even exist or it would be the purview of other nations.
unholyimage 11 months ago 16
@unholyimage - Exactly.
I don't like it when people come in starting these arguments about whether public or private space enterprises are "better". They never define what they mean by "better". It's a worthless argument since the private sector and the public sector of space exploration are VERY intertwined and codependent. It's also too early to make an evaluation of SpaceX as a standalone entity. I wish people like that would just sit back, enjoy the launches and, pardon my French, STFU.
A86 7 months ago
@unholyimage no douht but the stock holders run NASA as well, they want to cancel the james Web telescope now........... If more millionaires, hell billionaires Invested their money into this they would fly by nasa and make space cheaper and cheaper for the normal civilians, Nasa is all science awesome no douht but they arent working towards civilian space travel these guys can do that job for them and do it cheaper this is the future.
nateextreme0969 6 months ago
@blist14ant yes cause they dont have to do it for the first time...
manzha 10 months ago
@blist14ant Forgive me for my unfamiliarity with the subject, but aren't both the Atlas V and the Delta IV of the EELV program developed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, with federal funding? Is EELV for federal and defense use only, or can private companies pay to have satellites launched?
PsychoFur 10 months ago
@PsychoFur
Delta 4 is exclusively boeing parts mostly. Atlas V is manufactered by both companies.
The whole EELV program is government funded. So private companies work alone. They do buy high tech parts from companies such as lockheed martin but thats on own cost. The design itself is related and manufactered by space X only.
Armigo91 9 months ago
@blist14ant You are so right here! This was the way they got to the moon. By outsourcing production to private contractors.
Salladsdressing 8 months ago
@blist14ant they do it quicker, no doubt.
Designandrew 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
11:30 Ron Burgandy thanks you for your support
MiracleBlueMusic 1 year ago
Comment removed
MiracleBlueMusic 1 year ago
The interesting thing about SpaceX is that they are very successful. The first Falcon 9 launch was flaweless beside that roll issue of the sceond stage. The first Dragon test flight was a total successful even more, which I did not expect to be honest. And Dragon even looks quite well after reentry. I expected it to look way more burned.
SpaceX is very productive by less money than NASA. SpaceX's future looks promising. They already got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history.
AirSimming 1 year ago
One interesting note. If we can have 17 Falcon9 launches for the price of one Shuttle. That is 119 people in space vs only 7 people with shuttle. Based on 3 Shuttle missions a year that could be 51 Falcon9 missions or 357 people.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc I don't really think that we can get 17 "manned" Falcon 9 launches for the price of one Shuttle launch. Once NASA would be responsable for sending astronauts to the ISS by using Falcon 9, costs and delays will rise due to all of those NASA requirements. Remember that NASA is a big bloated governmental agency. However, once manned, Falcon 9 still will be way less expensive than the Shuttle.
AirSimming 1 year ago
You can't power launch a Dragon to orbit using only Dragons systems without a launcher. You cannot achieve the required needed velocity. He is clearly referring to powered landings such as the Russians are now working on not powered flight to orbit. It's not possible. You need a much bigger and more powerful system such as Venture Star.
beatlefriend 1 year ago
It is nice to have a human rated rocket in the US that is actually safe, and reliable for a change. Unlike Shuttle and Ares1.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc Are you saying it's completely safe after 2 flights?
Shuttle had 24 flights before challenger.
cixelsyD1988 1 year ago
@cixelsyD1988, I easily can say yes to that question. The fact that Falcon9 does not use solid rocket fuel is first and foremost with safety. That means that unlike Shuttle and Ares, Falcon9 can turn any of its 9 engines off mid flight. Also, it has a way to abort, unlike Shuttle because Dragon is mounted on top of the rocket rather than parallel to the main fuel tank. Also, Dragon has better heat shield which is can re-enter from moon/ mars missions at much higher speeds.
ti994apc 1 year ago
Comment removed
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc It wasn't a trillion, and the reason the X-33 and VentureStar failed was because we didn't have the knowledge base or experience with composite wrapped pressure vessels at the time. And it wasn't designed to be an SSTO.
spacevidcast 1 year ago
Comment removed
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc You're correct. I was wrong. I got some facts crossed...must be getting old. It's been quite a while since actually looking up info on the program.
spacevidcast 1 year ago
Comment removed
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc So you believe a rocket is safe as long as it has 2 flights, and engine redudancy. I might add that a LES for falcon 9 hasn't been made yet (Musk said he needs money and 3 years from NASA to do so). Soyuz has 25 engines and has an escape system, doesn't mean its completely safe, it required many flights to work out all the issues. Not saying I dislike spacex, I think they're the future, but I think more than 2 flights are needed before saying something is completely fit for people
cixelsyD1988 1 year ago
@cixelsyD1988 Soyuz has made 1000's of launches without a single death since 1971. I kind of look at Falcon9 as an improved Soyuz. Compare that to Shuttle where 1out 60 flights results in death. Your right, Falcon9 will need to make an escape system and work out any bugs they find. I hope we can get back to 1965 where we are launching at least once a month.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc the shuttle is actually somewhat equal in terms of fatalities compared to the soyuz.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 All of the Soyuz fatalities were pre 1973 using an old design and all during re-entry. The Soyuz rocket has had something like 1,743 launches and a great record by percentage. The US rockets have only become more dangerous since 1965. The Gemini/Titan II was the safest man rated rocket the us ever had and Falcon9 should change that.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 Nope. Just like ti994apc already mentioned, Soyuz did not cause any fatality for 38 years now whilst launching more often than the Shuttle. The Shuttle program had two complete losses during the past 24 years, mission STS-51L (caused by mismanagement) and STS-107 (caused by a still existing design flaw), which killed 14 astronauts all in all. Without NASA's commitment of assembling the International Space Station, STS-107 would have been the final Shuttle flight quite likely.
AirSimming 1 year ago
@AirSimming the shuttle claimed more lives yes. But the failure rate is still the same. Only two orbiters failed and only two soyuz craft failed. The Shuttle does need to be retired though. The venture star was supposed to be it's replacement and would of held better safety than both the soyuz and shutttle combined. It behaves similar to that of a regular airplane and require FAR less maintenance than the shuttle. Sad thing is that the floored the damn project!
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@AirSimming if the venture star were to become a reality it would of been the CHEAPEST method of sending a payload into space! and it's great because it didn't require any stages. just launch it and land it (it could even land it's self!)
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@AirSimming just think of how many launches they could do in a Week! instead of a year.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 Not only the European Space Agency calls Soyuz the most reliable launch vehicle to date. Soyuz is that much reliable that even NASA chosed it as the primary crew transportation and supply vehicle for the International Space Station.
Russian technology is widely underestimated, which I think still is a remnant of the cold war anti-Soviet propaganda in our western media. The Russian Proton Rocket, which was also used to assemble the ISS, is one of the most successful heavy launcher.
AirSimming 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EpiDemic117 Not only the European Space Agency calls Soyuz the most reliable launch vehicle to date. Soyuz is that much reliable that even NASA chosed it as the primary crew transportation and supply vehicle for the International Space Station.
Russian technology is widely underestimated, which I think still is a remnant of the cold war anti-Soviet propaganda in our western media. The Russian Proton Rocket, which was also used to assemble the ISS, is one of the most successful heavy launcher.
AirSimming 1 year ago
@ti994apc i believe that we need to get rid of the traditional staging rocket system all together.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 What alternative would you suggest?
baillou2 1 year ago
@baillou2 Space Elevator! :D
MiracleBlueMusic 1 year ago
There are alot of misstaments about Dragon 2. Dragon 2 will be used for Earth powered landings. It will land in a controled manner similar to how helicopters land on helipads using rocket motors. After landing, Dragon 2 will then be remounted on a new Falcon 9 and launched again. It will not be a self contained system that can take off reach orbit and land on it's own. It is mainly a pwered landing craft. The Russians are also working on a similar system.
beatlefriend 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@terytery1
Just some minor things:
Elon Musk was not talking about the "2nd Dragon". Powered landings are a medium to long term goal, I'm pretty sure the 2nd Dragon won't have that capability.
VentureStar/X-33 was canceled in 2001. So even if they had continued the development, I doubt they would have been in time to "safe" Columbia.
thisisnotajoke 1 year ago
@terytery1
Just some minor things:
Elon Musk was not talking about the "2nd Dragon". Powered landings are a medium to long term goal, I'm pretty sure the 2nd Dragon won't have that capabillity.
VentureStar/X-33 was cancelled in 2001. So even if they had continued the development, I doubt they would have been in time to "safe" Columbia.
thisisnotajoke 1 year ago
11:20 : wait, Tom Selleck is part of the SpaceX team?!
telemnor 1 year ago 2
4 people don't know awesome when they see it.
Membrane556 1 year ago
Phe-nominal job!!!
BigDaddy53154 1 year ago
This is pheNominal!
hbjon 1 year ago
4 people's brain's not nominal.
universal5man 1 year ago
All this smooth space flyin' for a wheel of cheese?!
prospectnyc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree, wheres the HD!!!! That would be NOMINAL!
Hotdogger808 1 year ago
I agree, where the HD!!!! That would be NOMINAL!
Hotdogger808 1 year ago
Great job team. Not just on the blast but sharing it with the rest of us too.
autoconverse 1 year ago
I have to agree, everything was totally nominal.
TemplarOfNight 1 year ago
When are they going to start using the anti-gravity technology they've had for years, instead of these chemical rockets? It's sort of like driving a Model T from coast to coast instead of using a jet air plane...hmm.
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 1 year ago
Are there any videos of the dragon splashdown?
joachim2464 1 year ago
SpaceX employees greeting each other at the office: "Morning, Bob. How are you today?" "Nominal, thanks for asking".
1944GPW 1 year ago 76
High-pitched guy broke protocol and said something "looks good".
rsp196607 1 year ago
Remember: If it makes you feel good, it's nominal. Everyone does it...
msdiediedie 1 year ago
Love it!
fastfashn 1 year ago
So you got tons of money but not an HD cam on board?
sevensevenification 1 year ago
@sevensevenification It's probably how much bandwidth that they allocated to video. Video isn't very important to what they want to measure.
msdiediedie 1 year ago
There's just something incredibly romantic about watching the Earth dwindle away as the rocket flies into the blackness of space. I'm super excited about the continued success of SpaceX!
Amdisperigrinus 1 year ago 5
fucking-nominal
alextan94 1 year ago
shit was phe-nominal
TheKturner05 1 year ago 4
Excellent.
Ujikaweapon1 1 year ago
they're going to launch the new iridium satellite constellation with these rockets, should give them enough capital and tests to make human flights more realistic
hukt0nf0nikz 1 year ago
om nom nom nominal
deewoken1 1 year ago
11:25 the guy on right is adorkable
sirald66 1 year ago
All I can say is Falcon9 is so much safer and more practical than NASA's Ares and Shuttle. The press keeps calling Falcon9 "risky" but the average person at CNN, Foxnews, or MSNBC does not know the difference between solid rocket fuel and liquid fuel.
ti994apc 1 year ago 2
it sort of looks fake eh
greg12145 1 year ago
@greg12145 Ahh yes, I remember seeing that footage the day it happened. That was fairly quickly shown to be a bunch of white/silver balloons bought for a teacher at a nearby school, and she accidentally let go of one bunch of the four or so that her students bought for her. In some shots you see the balloons still together as a bunch, while in others you see them after they separate. Also explains why there is no 'good' footage - its hard to focus on small objects like balloons!
ferrett78 1 year ago
The links I gave you are from NEWS reporting the supposed UFO sightings... find it interesting with all the advanced technology that the camera is so blurry in this video!!! We have crisp HD technology and we get blur-vision from this master technology in space -- kind of funny eh!!!
greg12145 1 year ago
Youtube should be called PUSSYTUBE!!! How many countless comments from non-pictured/named sources who don't do their homework but are QUICK ON THE DRAW with a nasty unresourced /non-researched comment!!!
greg12145 1 year ago
This is more than just awesome... it's NOMINAL! Great job, SpaceX!
1944GPW 1 year ago 3
@1944GPW Do you notice anything in the video!!!
greg12145 1 year ago
Don't comment to me unitl you do some homework... so tired of YOUTUBE ASSHOLES who never do they're research/homework on anything but splatter out a host of PROFANITY as if that is evidence to support they're position.... PROFANITIES AREN'T FACTS.... watch the videos ASSHOLES!!!!
greg12145 1 year ago
@greg12145 "watch the videos ASSHOLES!!!!"
What was that about YouTube assholes splattering out a host of profanities?
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 watch the other videos and then make an INFORMED COMMENT... not just a shoot-from-the-hip response without resourced information.
greg12145 1 year ago
@ferrett78 Make an informed response/comment... not just a shoot-from-the-hip response/tirade that is unscourced... watch the other videos described in my other responses.
greg12145 1 year ago
You just have to type in UFO Manhattan October 13.... and El Paso October 15... watch the videos.... the glowing balls make the triangle formation that you see on the right side at 4:33 and the 7:30 mark (along the Earth's horizon) to the Left of the screen... verify for yourself... not telling you anything they aren't telling you.... JUST NOTICE IT!!! You're being OUTRIGHT told there's a SECOND SYSTEM AT PLAY! Don't bother me until you check the videos out and notice the same formations
greg12145 1 year ago
It's Space X (10)... 6 spaceships forming triangles, or 10/6!!! Something Sumerian/NASA!!!????
greg12145 1 year ago
Then they make the same 3 Spaceship formation along the Earth's horizon around the 7 - 8 minute mark... They double the formation of 3 or 33.... October 13 is 33 days after 9/11 (amazing these are the 119 & 120th comments!!!
greg12145 1 year ago
Nobody noticing the SPACESHIP formation of 3 at the right side.... at 4:33... 334 was on the first airplane that hit the TWIN TOWERS... they made the same formation over Manhattan on October 13/2010 and El Paso on October 15/2010... see the connection to 9/11!!! They do it right in front of ya!!! There's a whole different technology at work PEOPLE!!! And their watching the others play catch-up!!!
greg12145 1 year ago
@greg12145
Here, students, we have a patient clearly suffering from schizophrenia.
giggletronics 1 year ago
wonderful! cant wait to see where this leads!
srfnscubamunkey 1 year ago 2
nominal
ggarnerG3 1 year ago 18