SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon COTS flight to International Space Station

[Ondelendo]

I am very happy to see the vidoe illustrates SpaceX's vision for providing crew transportation services to the International Space Station. Falcon 9 has nine Merlin engines clustered together from you, hopefully the others also are happy for You

[bebeheuy]

I Love The Video This video illustrates SpaceX's vision for providing crew transportation services to the International Space Station It Can Increase My Knowledge

[willamricard]

Nice Video illustrates SpaceX's vision for providing crew transportation services to the International Space Station. Falcon 9 has nine Merlin engines clustered together That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You

[RandyJ007]

@willamricard Thank you ^_^ I'm glad you like it

[imegatrone]

I Really Like The Video video illustrates SpaceX's vision for providing crew transportation services to the International Space Station From Your

[bundawartini]

Your This video illustrates SpaceX's vision for providing crew transportation services to the International Space Station. Is Very Useful Sharing

[Jenab7]

Don't you just like the way they toss away $15K worth of solar panel?

[ti994apc]

The US was actually going backwards in technology with Shuttle. With SpaceX we can finally move forward! Falcon9 is light years safer than Constellation/Shuttle at a fraction of the cost. Its nice to get a quality product for a change.

[DEMONshot666]

i highly doubt it can do that in 4:10 :p

[skadar]

One giant leap backwards in technology. Capsules? In 2011?  Really?

[RandyJ007]

@skadar They are FAR less expensive to build/fly/refurbish than the space shuttle

[TVperson1]

@RandyJ007 Yes, but so is delivering mail by boat instead of plane. Just be honist and admit the public has lost interest in space travel so the funding was cut back, that's why they haven't developed newer spacecraft.

[RandyJ007]

@TVperson1 Oh no argument there... Public interest has gone way down in the last 15 - 20 years, and it's all NASAs fault. They are a bloated bureaucracy more interested in how much money they can milk from congress, than in developing advanced technologies. This is why I'm in favor of commercializing space. Public interest will return once we have routine access to space. NASA needs to leave LEO operations in the hands of companies like SpaceX.

[Apollo580]

@RandyJ007 Milking money? Are you shitting me? They have a very difficult budget to work with. Even with the newest technology (james webb space telescope for example) they take the money away from Nasa and put it towards fighting in Afghanistan. Now that is a huge failure. Our idea of spending is so warped in this country.

[RandyJ007]

@Apollo580 No, I am not shitting you, sir. I am also not saying that NASA spends too much money. They receive less than 1/2 of 1% of the annual national budget... and that is the cause of the problem. We, as a country, spend so little on space/research/technology, that NASA is forced to focus on pumping Congress, just to keep afloat. Because of this, they have shifted their focus away from their primary goals. As a result, the space agency is now spiraling the drain...

[ti994apc]

@skadar winged shaped craft are NOT the ideal shape for atmospheric reentry. That is part of why Shuttle was the most dangerous manned vehicle ever created.

[paramedic90emt]

@skadar The space shuttle can not go beyond low Earth orbit. Capsules are the only type of earth launched craft that can go to the Moon, Asteroids, and Mars dumbass.

[Helge129]

@skadar For a misson just to orbit and back, nothing beats a capsule. Other than maybe a space elevator :p

[onetwothreelikeabird]

they look like their going so slow but on earth their like BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIII­NNNNNNGGGGGGGG BY AMERICA OFF TO CHIN-NVM, HEY AGAIN AMERICA

[rampike74]

I hope the development continues.

[jbg7920190km]

hebatnya

[RandyJ007]

@jbg7920190km geftornmya?

[tobigforyou]

@RandyJ007 ja.

[kempion]

Not made in China.

Commies need not apply.

Russia who?

HAHAHAHA! Capitalism FTW!

[Zoomer30]

I must hand it to SpaceX: I figured with nine engines in the first stage, it would take a few flights just to clear the tower....but no. 2 for 2 and no signs of slowing down.

[ti994apc]

Congrats Space X. With Falcon9 The US can return to its glory days of 1965 with launching at least once per month, safer and more reliable. Basically we can launch 130 astronauts for the price of 7 on shuttle. Or, 150 astronauts for the price of NASA's Ares1.

[A86]

@ti994apc - The Shuttle costs about $850 million to $1.1 billion per flight but the Ares I costs about $160 million/flight if you use it more than once a year. The Falcon 9 costs $50 million+/flight. So you could only launch about 20-something astronauts on the Falcon 9 for the price of the Ares I.

Anyways, congrats SpaceX! Especially with 9 engines!

[ti994apc]

@A86 **Ares1 costing a mer $160 million per flight is exists in only Lockheed Martins and NASA's dreams! They said the EXACT same thing about Shuttle when it came out. One has to look no further than the JSF to see that Lockheed Martin will say it will cost is never the cost. If you use the same legacy parts that shuttle was constructed with you will have the same legacy prices. They can have 10 Ares1 flights per year and it will still cost 1 billion p/ launch.

[A86]

@ti994apc - No, this figure was estimated by an independent panel. Originally they claimed the Falcon 9 would only cost $20 million/flight but now it's gone up to $50 million/flight. I could easily imagine the Ares I costing more than $160 million/flight but I seriously doubt it would cost $1 billion/flight if used more than once a year. If has nowhere near the recurring costs of the Shuttle which has to be halfway rebuilt after every single flight.

[ti994apc]

@A86 The Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters SRB's usually have to be molded back in shape each flight too. Adding the extra segment in Ares has made it more difficult.

[A86]

@ti994apc - Even the Augustine Panel derived the $1.1 billion figure from only using the Ares I once a year.

[ti994apc]

@A86 Keep in mind Ares1 is derived from Shuttle parts. I remember another commission saying "Shuttle program has failed to achieve its promised cost and utility goals, as well as design, cost, management, and safety issues. More specifically, it has failed in the goal of reducing the cost of space access. Space shuttle incremental per-pound launch costs are not appreciably cheaper than that of expendable launchers."

[A86]

@ti994apc - The SRBs don't need that much work after each flight and re-shaping them is a relatively simple process. The vast, vast majority of the costs of Shuttle fights are having to halfway rebuild the Orbiter after every flight and replacing the heat shield which is a major pain-in-the-ass.

I agree the Shuttle pretty much failed in terms of costs and affordability but Ares has a lot less recurring costs. The second stage of the Ares is expendable similar to EELVs.

[neocon70]

CONGRATULATIONS DRAGON! 

[Hairysteed]

Mark my words! Next manned mission on the moon will be on SpaceX vehicles!

[manyworlds123456789]

Damn this looks soooo much like the apollo missions (without going to the moon of course).

[ti994apc]

@manyworlds123456789 I don't see any similarity to apollo? I would say more to Soyuz and Titan II.

[EndeavourLaunch]

The dragons first flight is on Tuesday!

[MrDrwiley]

Very well produced video.

[Thesterness]

Fucking amazing graphics, especially the ISS docking and splashdown scenes.

[Conservativepacheat]

i don't want my country to rely on russian to transport our astronauts,it not that i dislike russians! it's the pride lost u.s.a will feel

[TVperson1]

Look at that waste of money. Just useless.

[RandyJ007]

@TVperson1 Waste of money?!... I'm a little confused, perhaps you could elaborate on your statement. If you are referring to the Falcon nine, it costs ~1/9th as much as the space shuttle, and is just as reusable. That is money is used to pay the employees and contractors, so it goes back into the economy, making things better for everyone... So, again, how is it a waste of money?????

[TVperson1]

@RandyJ007 It still needs expensive fuel to get off the ground.

[RandyJ007]

@TVperson1 It burns liquid oxygen and kerosene... neither of which are all that expensive. I know this for a fact because I'm purchasing both for my own rocket project... and I can afford it just fine while putting myself through college (Mechanical/Aerospace Engineering, if you care to know, is my degree). As well, the Falcon 9 first stage is reusable... So, if that's really the core of your argument, please take your fail and get the hell out of my comment thread. Thank you! :)

[TVperson1]

@RandyJ007 If it's so cheap why haven't they done it before? Besides it's a waste of research and development when nothing but interplanetary mining will come of it. We don't need to mine outer space, we don't need to live on Mars or Titan and we don't need to waste billions of dollars useless rockets that brake away and get stuck in orbit. Beside what real reasons are there for putting people into space.

[RandyJ007]

@TVperson1 Space travel up 'til now has been a bureaucratic affair, and thus has been more focused on acquiring funding from Congress. SpaceX is changing that. Space mining will be VERY important. A rather small Near-Earth asteroid can provide over $1 Trillion worth of resources that would otherwise be strip mined from the Earth. Thats an extra trillion dollars infused into the world economy. Mining, however, is only the beginning. The colonization of space will begin in our lifetimes. (Con't)

[TVperson1]

@RandyJ007 I see your point. I apologise for my comments, I hate GTFO the word "fail". I'm just jealous because Australia can't even afford to launch any type of rocket into space, and I'm annoyed at some retards who think startrek is a possible future, oh the stupidity. I'm not sure about colonising a another planet, I'm think preventing the population from getting too high would be a better idea. Good luck on your engineering adventures.

[RandyJ007]

@TVperson1 Thank you, and you bring up a valid point: whatever our future holds, it won't be like Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, Babylon 5, etc etc... you get the point. Planetary colonization will take a VERY long time, but there is plenty we can do in the interim. Try to find a copy of 'The Millennial Project' by Marshal Savage. He has a few wild ideas about space, but some pretty sound concepts too. Makes for a pretty decent read. P.S. I apologize if I offended you at all; was not my intent

[RandyJ007]

@TVperson1 When the population of our planet becomes too large to support, what do you propose we do??? The human race WILL move into space, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. As to your comment on rockets that BREAK (not brake) away and get stuck in orbit: the Falcon 9 first stage is recovered & reused (I feel like I'm repeating myself), and the second stage is de-orbited. Little to no parts are left in orbit. Before you get into a conversation like this, do a little research first.

[TVperson1]

@RandyJ007 Pointing out a spelling mistake is a bit arrogant.

However I'm certain no one will want to live in dome on a planet that can't support humans. It's not like we can just change the gravity, atmosphere, temperature on other planets. Hmm de-orbited you say, and how do they recover the rocket? Still, humans can't live in space or on other planets and it's just ridiculous to think that we can. If the earth is over populated, put domes in the deserts instead of other planets.

[monokhem]

@TVperson1 "I'm certain no one will want to live in dome on a planet that can't support humans." What's it like to be so wrong? Thousands of peolpe are dying to do that.

[TVperson1]

@monokhem Well that's pretty retarded.

[TVperson1]

@monokhem I'm almost certain that within 100 years of the domes, they'll only be poor people living on those planets.

[monokhem]

@TVperson1 No, there will be a few rich people. Most will be poor, but thier decendants will be rich. That's how colinization works.

[Macgyver4096]

@RandyJ007

This won't solve overpopulation, unfortunately. Stephen Hawking cited the single best justification for space exploration-- that we need to spread out so no single disaster can destroy the entire human race. Yes, we have a lot of problems that need fixing on Earth, and yes, we don't *need* to mine asteroids, but neither did we need to colonize the Americas or develop any technologies that make civilization possible.

[Macgyver4096]

Continued economic growth will eventually require colonizing the rest of the solar system, and (hopefully) the end result of that will be a higher standard of living for everyone. Bear in mind that over a century passed between the time Columbus first arrived the Caribbean, and the first fully self-sufficient colonies started appearing.

[RandyJ007]

@Macgyver4096 Quite right. This doesn't solve overpopulation, just gives us more room to grow. I remember that statement from Prof. Hawking as well. He said that if we don't move into space, the human species has between 100 and 1000 years before we are extinct from natural disaster (asteroid/comet impact etc.). Nice example, comparing this to the American colonies. Although I personally feel we can get 'er done in under 100 years (John Glenn:1962 - Mars Colony:2062). Thanks for the input!

[TVperson1]

@RandyJ007 Could well be a natural disaster that wipe out earth, but if you one of those nuts would believe that the world ends in 2012 or WW3, I can't help but disagree with everything you're saying. Besides, with the world in it's current state I'm don't think we're ready for space colonisation at the moment. But that's my opinion.

[alexisa1]

@TVperson1 Space travel has developed over 30,000 patents and inventions in the last 40 years. Inventions from TV Satellite Dish, Medical Imaging , Vision Screening System, Ear Thermometer, Fire Fighter Equipment, Smoke Detector, Sun Tiger Glasses, Ski Boots, Invisible Braces, Joystick Controllers, Microwave, Vision Screening Systems, Cat Scans, Better Cardiac Pacemakers, •Cordless Tools etc etc etc.. And You said is a waste of time?? Ignorance is a bliss.

[TVperson1]

@alexisa1 I don't all that stuff is directly related. You could make a similar argument about WW2, but the truth is no one knows what the world would look like if it had turned out differently. They may have discovered different things if money wasn't spent on space travel. I mean it costs billions to put people into space.

[cadude145]

At first I was less than happy because, it appeared to me that the USA has pretty much given up on spaceflight. Further, I could not imagine that we would retire the shuttle and have nothing upon which to rely, other than (it appeared) begging your friends for a ride. Perhaps, though I may not like the breach, someone has stepped through to fill it. - Well Done

Don

[coasterpro]

@cadude145 Well they haven't quite done it yet. Space X will not give a time-line for their first human flight. I guess that Bolden (NASA administrator) has personally decided that SpaceX will be ready for manned flight by 2015... **cough*grumble*moan**... we'll see.

[BiadezZ]

Wow that's the best animation I've ever seen!!

[LeadHammer]

AFAIK,when the Soyuz descends, it brakes first, then the service module separates on initial phase of descend and burns. In this video the Dragon separates from the trunk first, then brakes and descends. What happens to the trunk? Is it going to fly in space? More space junk? Not a very good idea.

[RandyJ007]

@LeadHammer If I'm not mistaken, the burn maneuver performed at 2:07 is the initial de-orbit burn. Then after disconnecting from the trunk, Dragon would perform another quick burn to put some distance between it and the trunk. So, the trunk will be de-orbited as well

[LeadHammer]

@RandyJ007 If this is true then the Dragon has very little time to disconnect from the trunk and reorient itself for descent. This looks quite risky to me.

[RandyJ007]

@LeadHammer it actually has 40 minutes or so from the de-orbit burn to entry interface... plenty of time :)

[johnsmdm]

the bloody program is in shambles....we should be on Mars in 3 years...not this repetitive business...

[RandyJ007]

@johnsmdm I absolutely believe we have the ability to go to the Moon or a Near Earth Object in the next few years (5-7), but going to Mars is a wholly diferent prospect. It will be the most difficult and dangerous voyage ever taken by humanity, and it's important that we prove ourselves and our technology near home before heading to the Red Planet. NASAs current estimates put a mission to Mars in 2031, which is ridiculous. We can do it sooner than that

[johnsmdm]

@RandyJ007 ....this is the psychological problem sir...was Columbus afraid to travel the 7 seas hunh....the moon is 40 years henceforth...judge history as a failure of leadership...you sir better look in the mirror tonight...

[RandyJ007]

@johnsmdm Psychological problem?? Afraid?? You are way off base, pal. I am speaking, of course, about technological and astrophysical concerns. Spend a few extra years developing VASIMR-type rocket engines so we can get there in under 3 months (instead of 8 months) => Thus exposing astronauts to less risk... It's not difficult to understand...

[FerrariDMC]

What is the cost diff between this and the Nasa shuttle from start to finish, and not counting the falcon 9's development?

[RandyJ007]

@FerrariDMC If it's launch costs you're asking about...

Space Shuttle: ~$450 Million / flight

Falcon 9  : ~$52 Million / flight

... a savings of $398 Million. Looking at it a different way: Nine flights of the Falcon 9 costs roughly the same as a SINGLE space shuttle launch.

[coasterpro]

@RandyJ007 @RandyJ007 "... a savings of $398 Million"

That is not exactly correct. If we compare the most economic configurations of both the Falcon 9 and the Space Shuttle, the F9 will lift 29,610 kg into LEO at a mission cost of $80 million where as the SS will lift 25,060 at $450 million. The SS, however, does double duty as personnel transport which requires two flights for F9. Thus the fairest comparison is $160 million vs. $450 million. Still vastly cheaper, but not 9 to 1.

[RandyJ007]

@coasterpro this is a good point... I was looking strictly at launch costs... to deliver as much as the shuttle would require a Falcon 9 launch w/ crew & a Falcon 9 Heavy w/ cargo....

[MachiavelliNZ]

Good job SpaceX for the recent flight of Falcon 9!!

[GmlnOrio94]

Just a bit curious, what happens to all the sections that detach while they're lifting off and in orbit? Do they just burn up in the atmosphere or at some point also parachute slowly down?

I get the idea people wouldn't be happy having shuttle parts raining down on them lol :P

[RandyJ007]

Congrats to SpaceX on the successful launch of Falcon 9 - Flight 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RijenRijen]

fake :p

[terytery1]

I don't tink there is a tower on the rocket. Elan said the exscape system was built into the Falcon 9. There is no tower to throw away. Possible lanch of Falcon 9 is

now May 23.

[NLonDS]

very nice!

[ukrainesuperpower87]

7 austonauts in capsule? Unbelievable!

[jaw1002]

how did it get back down without the de-orbit burn?

[RandyJ007]

@jaw1002 The Dragon spacecraft will use its RCS thrusters for on-orbit maneuvers like circularizing the orbit, and the de-orbit burn. It will not take much force to do that since the capsule will have a relatively small mass. For instance, even the Shuttles' OMS engines (used to de-orbit, etc.) only change the orbiter velocity by around 230 kph

[chuckpcr]

The day this video becomes reality will the greatest day in manned space flight since Apollo 11. It will be the day the Government monopoly on manned orbital flight will broken. That will be a day to celebrate.

[qup5]

Why does the service module appear to have so much empty space in this animation?

I'm assuming it's an error in the animation because it would be extremely pointless to have so much empty space within the module.

[RandyJ007]

Well, this animation depicts the first manned Dragon flight to the station, which may just be a COTS demonstration flight, so they MAY not carry much cargo... but thats just my theory

[qup5]

The service module does not carry cargo, it houses the propulsion systems (tanks, engines, etc), solar panels, and communication equipment; all of which would be needed for any kind of flight.

[RandyJ007]

@qup5 actually, it will carry cargo. A sort of 'external' cargo hold. As Dragon is approaching ISS, you can see some cargo modules inside. When they depart station, the cargo is gone.

[qup5]

No the service module will not carry cargo, the external cargo hold you are reffering to is called the 'trunk' and it is located on the back of the reentry module, in front of the service module.

I think the animation is just flawed.

[docmordrid]

Notice: today, Oct 8, 2009, SpaceX is scheduled to test the first stage of their first Falcon 9 flight in Texas. Another test next week (longer) leading up to a full 3 minute burn. Then the 2nd stage gets tested and both get shipped to Cape Canaveral for integration in late November.

Cargo: a Dragon. At first it was to be a dummy payload with a fairing, but with the COTS demo flights coming up they decided to get Dragon data instead.

[heound]

I hear its going to launch on february 1 2010.

is this true

[RandyJ007]

The official launch date has not been announced yet, but I would say Feb 1st is a pretty decent bet...

[heound]

feb 2nd they announced already

maiden flight.

[RandyJ007]

where did you hear that? they have not announced anything on their website yet...

[heound]

honestly

i read it up on wikipedia.

[heound]

must've been wrong. then.

[heound]

never mind, now it says its in march

[RandyJ007]

Yeah, I found where the wikipedia info is coming from. It looks like the original date was nov 29, got pushed back to feb 9, and now to early march. I can't wait....

[pointmanzero]

The feb date has been pushed back. They are launching in march for sure.

It's been on spaceflightnow and slashdot

[CardShark989]

wooo only a few more weeks

[docmordrid]

The first launch window starts at 11;00 AM EST March 8, 2010.

Now that Obamahas canceled NASA's Orion spacecraft and the Ares rockets it'll be up to SpaceX's Dragon, Bigelow Aerospace's Orion Lite (same pressure capsule as Orion but far lighter) and Sierra-Nevada/SpaceDev's Dream Chaser spaceplane to do the US'sanned missions.

Bigelow may also be planting one of their inflatable habitats @ ISS as well.

NewSpace will have to come of age much faster than anyone dared think just 2 years ago.

[heound]

Cool

[EpoBot]

I hope it will work. But i try to stay sober and remember that just because it's privately funded, it doesn't automatically work better then anything NASA makes.

[RandyJ007]

This is, of course, very true & virtually all spacecraft systems and engines are based on work that was pioneered by NASA in the 50s and 60s. I do feel that this is a step in the right direction though. With the commercialization of space, the costs will be driven far below the current levels. We will see a day when you or I can buy a ticket to space just as easily and cheaply as we can buy an airline ticket.

[crewportal1]

NASA has only gone backwards from the 60's in Rocket achievement using solid rocket fuel. That is why Russia can sent people to space in cheap and reliable way with Soyuz. The Titan II (using RL-87 engine) from the 60's was the best most practical 1st stage launch vehicle NASA ever had. The Falcon9 is the Unites States best chance of a true safe low cost way to put people into space. NASA Ares I is one more step backwards for NASA.

[RandyJ007]

Well, right now they are ground testing all the systems & I seem to remember reading that the F9 is no longer vertical. In any case, that particular vehicle will launch in a couple of months

[pointmanzero]

I cant wait!

[pointmanzero]

computer generation is great but, let's see it.

[RandyJ007]

The first COTS demo flight is slated for later this year & will be unmanned. The first manned flight should happen in 2010-2011.

[pointmanzero]

Nice video! I love spaceX ,

So.... when are we going to see the falcon 9 launch?

Right now it is just sitting there doing nothing.....

[arias1772]

i believe ther were some compatibility issues. but there was suppose to be a launch on the twentieth of this month. delayed for about 2 weeks. so sometime around a week would be nice

[RandyJ007]

You are right, but that was a Falcon 1, not the F9 in Florida. Yeah, the mount for the satellite was incorrect so they could not put it in the payload bay... Oops :) Where did you read that the launch was delayed 2 weeks? I couldn't find anything...

[arias1772]

i know an engineer over there... i just looked at my e mail though and he said look out in the next two weeks for information regarding the live feed. nothing regarding the launch actually being in that time range. so i'm not too sure. i can't wait though these launches are so damn exciting. especially spacex.