Well....where is all this money going that Elon Musk is taking from the taxpayers ? Certainly not into space, he has a VERY hard time getting there, and nothing to show for it.
He used $100 million of his own money to get this ball rolling. He is still investing vast amounts of his own money and cred to keep it going. Yes, he received a $1.6 billion contract to provide 12 flights to the ISP. That amounts to about $133 million per flight. That is a lot cheaper than it is being done now. He is being provided launch facilities by the U.S. Air Force, but that sounds like a pretty square deal to me. The $ of space access must go down to continue.
My inner nerd and gearhead is very happy after watching this.
I'm thinking ...
Why does it take a spiral flightpath ? Does this retain more momentum this way ? or were they testing Falcon's ability to sustain maneuvers ? or is this mainly parallax error from the camera on the spinning for stability rocket which gives the impression of spiraling ?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@BeamRider100 The second stage virtually spun out of control. Before the launch, one of their techs had to trim 4" off S2 engine bell sout it would seperate properly. The stage was spotted spinning out of control over Australia and was lost somewhere in the Pacific.
There was NOTHING successful about this flight, but SpaceX would like you to believe otherwise.
The reusable booster is in a crumpled heap at the bottom of the Atlantic.
@cliffsplace Let's see. It was the first launch. The vehicle didn't blow up but got off the pad successfully. The 2nd stage separated and fired without the first stage running into it. The 2nd stage put the test article into the designed orbit despite a minor spin problem. It fulfilled most if not all of the test flight objectives, so it has to be deemed successful. The 2nd flight was even more successful.
@Jimbob8971 but a thing about education... Why tell people to become rocket scientist and all these other jobs and spend so many years in school for such a great education if there are no jobs for them to have? Providing jobs and outlets for the education is just as important.
@Jimbob8971 NASA's budget is like 1/2 of 1% of the Federal budget. There are other things to cut. Do you even know how much the developments from NASA and NASA contractors effect your life everyday? I guess not.. With that said, I'm happy to see private companies putting money into research and development.
@Jimbob8971 They will, once Obama is out of the White House in 2012. So what if NASA buys some launches from the private sector, when it is what they've been doing for most launches over the past 25 years now. Once the first Orion is launched downrange on a Delta IV or a Liberty Rocket, that'll get the momentum going and the program will be here for when NASA is able to get the heavy lift rocket it needs for proper human deep space exploration.
@Jimbob8971 So? The Orion is going to built just as planned. It is designed to be a long-duration, deep space craft, and it is still being built that way. except for the launch escape system, which is why it is being used at ISS as an escape vehicle for it's initial flights. But all the systems will be there for when the U.S. gets off it's ass and decides to use Orion to visit the Moon, asteroids, or go to Mars.
@Jimbob8971 Orion has not been cancelled. Constellation has been cancelled, as well as the Ares family of rockets, but not Orion. The first Orion capsule has been finished up structurally and has been shipped out for final outfitting and then for a series of extensive tests.
It is? You are aware that the Orion LES has been built and tested numerous times, right? You are aware that LockMart is fabricating parts for Orion's structrual test article, and is seriously considering an unmanned test flight in 2013 on a Delta IV Heavy, right? You might want to go look up some real info since you only seem to be wearing blinders right now. Try Google searching 'Orion capsule flight hardware' and see what comes up. You may be suprised.
@bombarderoazul These are the same engines as used on the Falcon 1. The Falcon 1 requires only one Merlin engine. So that SpaceX didn't have to develop an entirely new engine for the Falcon 9, it uses a modular design that employs 9 of the same engine used on the Falcon 1.
Even if SpaceX were copying the Russians, progress in engineering relies on building on past designs, much like evolution. Please don't be so cynical from the outset just because you don't understand something.
@bombarderoazul... By using an array of nine smaller engines (merlin 1C's) vs one giant one such as Rocketdyne's J2 you get a lot advantages. Each engine is much smaller and can be moved around and installed using a standard fork lift. It can also be shipped by a standard truck and flown as standard cargo on an aircraft . Also each engine only produces 1/9 of the over all thrust making the engine design easier.
@coldforgedcowboy Funny how the same concept on the Russian N1 rocket was heavily criticized. Falcon 9 has 9 small engines, Falcon 9 Heavy will have 27 small engines, not too far from 30 engines on the N1. The N1 did not fly not because the concept was wrong, but because of lack of proper testing. Falcon 9 confirms that a multi-engined rocket can fly.
@NJRocks281 It is interesting, he is going through a divorce and she wants lots o money, and he claims "I am broke, been borrowing money from friends" coincidence?
There is something more elegant about a kerosene powered rocket vs. the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle/ares. No giant fireball. Minimal smoke. Why did NASA make the change?
@Tubeglowfun The STS SRBs were a design compromise made decades ago to save R&D money. Originally STS would have used one of several flyback or recovereable liquid fuel-powered systems, but would have cost the program more than the Nixon administration and Congress were willing to spend. But Ariane 5 as well as other successful rocket systems make use of SRBs for first stage assist because they are cheap, simple, and generally reliable systems that give a lot of thrust.
@Nowhereman10 "The STS SRBs were a design compromise made decades ago to save R&D money"
No, they they were a no-compromise money transfer to the interested parties in Utah. (Of course it didn't make Utah any more livable. Let's wait how Mars is going to fare. ;-))
@LennonHat The Wright Brothers didn't build the first powered airplane. Dr. Samuel Pierpont Langley among many others pioneered that years before. Look up the history of his Aerodromes 5-6. What the Wright Bros succeeded with was making the first *manned* heavier- than-air aircraft.
@fernbap Yes, as I said in my post "among many others pioneered that years before". Ader is a bit controversial for while he did construct and fly several smaller models as Langley did in the 1890s, it is uncertain whether the claims of his having flown his Avion III successfully manned ever happened or not. But at the very least the Wright Bros. are not even close to being the first to have made the first heavier-than-air aircraft. Just the first documented successful manned one.
This is just awesome! I love how quickly after liftoff you can see the curve of the earth. I mean this thing really rockets into space! I'm proud to know one of the engineers who works on the Falcon 9.
@AdmrlLocke it's true how fast it is but you really dont need to be that high to see the curve of the earth :) just go somewhere with no building and climb a hill :L
@NJRocks281 That is a very strange attitude. So you are saying that somebody like Henry Ford wouldn't deserve any credit, since he did not invent the combustion engine. Science and engineering does not work that way. And by the way, Tesla holds 14 patents from developing the battery system, 8 of which are on the name of Musk him self. Not counting SpaceX and Solar city. Quit bickering, the guy is a genius.
@NJRocks281 And who would these giants be? All of his companies started pretty much for scratch. I am very well aware of Musk's cash problem. That doesn't make him poor or bankrupt if you understand the difference between net worth and cash. As for efficiency, I will concede if you can find one single example in history of a company that designed, manufactured and successfully launched a medium-to-heavy lift rocket in just 8 years of existence a 1/4 the cost.
@NJRocks281 Get your facts right, he is the actual product architect for both the falcon 9 and the tesla model S. He has a degree in physics and is involved in every technical bit of his products. Like steve jobs and bill gates, he is closer to an engineer than to a business man in my opinion, that's what makes him so efficient.
@NJRocks281 to be fair Elon Musk was the FOUNDER of paypal as well as Tesla Motors and SpaceX. He's kind of the real life equivalent of Tony Stark. Indeed Jon Favreau, the director of Iron Man 1 and 2, said that for the movies he modeled the character off of Elon Musk. Also SpaceX is a company specifically devoted to space exploration and rocketry, Lockheed Martin is primarily an airplane company.
Wow seeing that Engine start in the Second Stage is amazing...The camera placement was Very well done... I don't think anyone has ever seen the actual engine nozzle fire while in escape. Great Job guys! best of luck!
Who says it's dangerous? The preeminent rocket engineer of the 20th century "Wernher von Braun". Wernher von Braun was against using solid rocket fuel for manned missions. I would rather ride in an untested falcon9 than ride in Ares1 or Shuttle. Lockheed Martin has more PROFIT motive than any other company.
This is the rocket that was soposed to be responceable for the spiral seen in aystralia 1 hour later....how fast does it go,from what i worked out it went 15000 km in that hour to be above Australia,12 times the speed of sound....?
Besides the fact that Falcon9 being much safer than Ares . Falcon9 is estimated to have a recurring cost of almost $45.8 Million per flight. Ares 1 is estimated to have a recurring cost of almost $1Billion per flight.
we need to inspire more company's to do this type of thing and prehaps see better development. Becuase i thinks there would be a lot better craft made than what has been made in ten years than we have seen since the 1070's space program by government bodies.
Looks like the roll control actuator failed - it's always the cheap(er) parts :-P
Still, 99.5% of what they needed to do and then some, so a very good launch. Senators Hutchinson and Shelby can now put on their propeller beanies, go sit in the corner and shut the hell up.
This is so much better than Ares1. Safer, carries more people, and fraction of the cost. I am sure Lockheed Martin will be using all its lobbying power to stop this.
This launch is more about how NASA can do business in the future. NASA works on a cost + plus model with their contractors. NASA pay the "contractors cost" plus a % for profit. The contractors can not lose money.
SpaceX charges a fixed amount per launch. They are not going to waste $.
Example, SpaceX laid some railroad track and made a simple lunch tower.
NASA spent $500 million on the Ares 1 "launch tower" alone. Why because they make more if they spend more or your tax dollars!
Safety is far more important. And the Ares I a far more powerful rocket.
Launching a human crew will be far more difficult than this launch as it will need
a launch abort system. More cost, More TAX dollars. I just don't see this space craft inspiring generations of Americans for decades like the Apollo or the Shuttle did. I mean ....Look at it.....its a flying Mailing Tube.
Falcon 9 is light years safer than Ares in every way! Ares only carries 5 people (even know its the size and cost of Saturn V). Falcon 9 carries 7 people at a fraction of the cost because its not made by Lockeed. Basically, we can take 48-64 people to space with Falcon9 vs 5 people with Ares 1at the same cost and falcon9 is a much safer system.
No. The Orion has a planned capacity of 6 and an emergency of 8. The Dragon capsule has not been built and Space X has a long way to go before it LEARNS
the reality of running a manned space program at a PROFIT.
@nonamedyet Its being debating - the president suggested they kill it but there's a lot of ruffled feathers. Regardless, many have seen this coming for ages because the program has been starved for money for a long time by previous congresses and the previous administration, producing a significant 'gap'. Personally I don't see congress actually committing the necessary money. But that is just my bias.
@ti994apc You are aware that Orion is a much more massive and twice the volume in the capsule and service module than does Dragon in order to support deep-space missions for months at a time? That's why Ares I had to be able to lift over 25 metric tons to LEO. Dragon in order to match Orion would need to not only be bigger, but heavily modified beyond what Elon Musk and other Space X people have described. So your comparing a Winebago (Orion) to a mini-van here.
@Nowhereman10 Dragon has more Habitable Volume and carries 7 people to Ares 4 people. Orion's endurance is 210 days while Dragon is up to 940 days. Cost wise you have have almost 25 Dragons for the price of 1 Orion. That also equates to over 150 astronauts in space to ares 4 astronauts. Dragon can parachute safely to the ground. Ares1 needs to lift so much weight because the giant crew escape system needed for dangerous solid rocket fuel.
@Nowhereman10 Dragon is still more capable now than Orion. even if only based on track record. Dragon orbital - proven, Orion sub-orbital - simulated. And furthermore, Dragon has roughly the same pressurized volume and better heat shield when compared to the Orion capsule.
@reinrod01 That's not really true. Again, you are trying to compare a minivan (Dragon) to a cross-country Winnebago (Orion). Orion's pressurized volume is a little over 19.5 m^3, while Dragon's is 10 m^3. It's simple geometry since Orion's capsule is 5 m wide and 3.3 m tall, while Dragon's is only 2.9 x 3.6 m. Again, As far as track record, Orion has something that Dragon currently does not: A fully functioning and tested LES. Dragon is estimated to need another $1 billion and 3 years for that.
@Nowhereman10 orion is still conceptual and another 1.3 billion to fly a test flight and with the cancelation of Ares 1, is now a vehicle with out wheels. it's more like comparing a minivan to a custom van when you look at useble volume internal volume.
@Kapitananime stop being a little hating bitch..... SpaceX is doing exactly what you said they would never be able to do, Elon Musk should be dangling his nuts in your mouth right now saying "HAHA I told you so"
Ares had performance shortfalls. It is for that reason that Orion's capability to land on land was stripped away. It was considered to be too heavy for Ares 1.
Ares 1 had so far cost $9 billion to make and they hadn't even made the second stage much less reach orbit. Falcon 9 development cost has been $250 million (someone fact check me on that one.)
Falcon 9 is also NOT funded by the government therefore does not place the burden on the tax payer.
True..... spacex has won contracts for NASA... but that is very different from NASA footing the bill for development.
The falcon 9 is also the first truly 21st century American rocket, rather than technology used from the 50s-70s. There are a large number of innovations such as using the same engines on both stages in order to cut development costs AND it will be a fully reusable launch vehicle.
hopefully this will clear some of your misconceptions.
Fully reusable? I'll "fact check" you on that one. I love the Falcon 9, but even Elon Musk seems dubious as to whether they can reuse the SECOND stage. Try taking a piece of that hardware that size and slowing it down, landing it, recovering it, and refurbishing. It's several orders of magnitude more expensive than just reusing the first stage. Does anybody know if they recovered the F9 first stage?
@Kapitananime Falcon 9 is designed to be eventually man-rated. Right now, it is to be used for the unmanned (but pressurized) Dragon cargo COTS missions to the International Space Station. As such, it does not need any crew escape system. Once a number of flights have been made and the Falcon 9 has proved itself, the manned version of Dragon *with a crew escape system* is expected to be finalized and eventually used to ferry people into orbit.
@Kapitananime Well that show how little you know about rockets. Keep your shithead buried in anime and stop worrying about safety and spending more tax dollars. I hope you the end of the line of your lineage of shitheads.
Ares I is a big bottle rocket with people on top. The test launch was with four segmented rocket, because the manufacturer did not have combustion instability in five-segment rocket sorted out, not that they had any idea how to do it properly anyway. One of the solutions called out for a mass dampener. Doesn't THAT sound like a plan, using dead weight to cancel out shortcomings in a flawed concept. I'm glad beyond words to see Ares go. It's an inefficient death-trap if anything.
@NLonDS I know the answers to my questions ... I just would really really like spacevidcast. to comment .. as well no one is listening , and to hear it from the horses mouth would be a great help.
@kurt30001 About three years, say SpaceX. They are building a heavy-lift version of the Falcon 9 called the Falcon 9 Heavy (they weren't feeling too imaginative when they named it).
It would have two extra Falcon 9 1st stages act as boosters so you would have the normal Falcon 9 1st stage with two more one on either side, giving you 27 engines on the 1st stage and the same 2nd stage as the normal Falcon 9 (1xMerlin 1C engine). It will be able to lift up to 32,000 kg to LEO or 19,500 kg to GTO.
Did you hear the interesting addendum to this launch?
There were reports along the Eastern seaboard of Australia at ~06:30 of a UFO, with a circular spiral pattern eminating from it's centre. It was later announced on the news that the time's correlated very closely to the launch time, & flight path.
Bug at 2:02 is saying "WTF IS GOING ON AAAARGH!!!!!"
aei05h1 2 months ago
'
how come this rocket do not have FINS on the end bottom near engine
bestamerica 2 months ago
Slight spin problem there......
anna803232 2 months ago
Well....where is all this money going that Elon Musk is taking from the taxpayers ? Certainly not into space, he has a VERY hard time getting there, and nothing to show for it.
cliffsplace 4 months ago
@cliffsplace
He used $100 million of his own money to get this ball rolling. He is still investing vast amounts of his own money and cred to keep it going. Yes, he received a $1.6 billion contract to provide 12 flights to the ISP. That amounts to about $133 million per flight. That is a lot cheaper than it is being done now. He is being provided launch facilities by the U.S. Air Force, but that sounds like a pretty square deal to me. The $ of space access must go down to continue.
jamcrane3 2 months ago
@Planetar17 I think they already have done that.
sweetdwhite 5 months ago
2:02 stupid bee
letitride420 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
letitride420,
2:02 stupid bee
letitride420 3 months ago
'
it is a hornet or wasp or yellowjacket,,,
not a bee
bestamerica 2 months ago
is that rob reiners dildo?
OrogDeMalfur 8 months ago
@OrogDeMalfur Nope. Your mother's. She showed me one just like it last night! XD
CUNTservativesRDung 7 months ago
Comment removed
nicpetnic 10 months ago
The bug at 1:59 almost spoilt the shot, I heard his voice waver.
BeamRider100 10 months ago
My inner nerd and gearhead is very happy after watching this.
I'm thinking ...
Why does it take a spiral flightpath ? Does this retain more momentum this way ? or were they testing Falcon's ability to sustain maneuvers ? or is this mainly parallax error from the camera on the spinning for stability rocket which gives the impression of spiraling ?
BeamRider100 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@BeamRider100 The second stage virtually spun out of control. Before the launch, one of their techs had to trim 4" off S2 engine bell sout it would seperate properly. The stage was spotted spinning out of control over Australia and was lost somewhere in the Pacific.
There was NOTHING successful about this flight, but SpaceX would like you to believe otherwise.
The reusable booster is in a crumpled heap at the bottom of the Atlantic.
So much for 'cost effective'.
cliffsplace 9 months ago
@cliffsplace Let's see. It was the first launch. The vehicle didn't blow up but got off the pad successfully. The 2nd stage separated and fired without the first stage running into it. The 2nd stage put the test article into the designed orbit despite a minor spin problem. It fulfilled most if not all of the test flight objectives, so it has to be deemed successful. The 2nd flight was even more successful.
1sorryham 8 months ago 9
@1sorryham Can't explain things to idiots. Especially one that's just trying to find fault in any and everything.
bubblinbrownsugar616 7 months ago 3
@cliffsplace A succesful flight means you make it to space without exploding.
SupaHumanTV 7 months ago
@cliffsplace You know...as SupaHumanTV stated, getting to space without blowing up is considered a successful flight.
Helge129 6 months ago
@cliffsplace You're an asshole
bibbler227 4 months ago
@Jimbob8971 ya if they said that before we came to America there would be no USA. We would all still be in Europe.
nnormore18 10 months ago
@Jimbob8971 but a thing about education... Why tell people to become rocket scientist and all these other jobs and spend so many years in school for such a great education if there are no jobs for them to have? Providing jobs and outlets for the education is just as important.
fryede03 10 months ago
@Jimbob8971 Go google all the developments that civilians use, that came from developing space technology. Things that wouldn't be here today.
And why do you think we can't live on mars? That is a joke. Of coarse we will be able to.
frozenrocketguy 11 months ago
@Jimbob8971 NASA's budget is like 1/2 of 1% of the Federal budget. There are other things to cut. Do you even know how much the developments from NASA and NASA contractors effect your life everyday? I guess not.. With that said, I'm happy to see private companies putting money into research and development.
frozenrocketguy 11 months ago
@Jimbob8971 They will, once Obama is out of the White House in 2012. So what if NASA buys some launches from the private sector, when it is what they've been doing for most launches over the past 25 years now. Once the first Orion is launched downrange on a Delta IV or a Liberty Rocket, that'll get the momentum going and the program will be here for when NASA is able to get the heavy lift rocket it needs for proper human deep space exploration.
Nowhereman10 1 year ago
@Jimbob8971 So? The Orion is going to built just as planned. It is designed to be a long-duration, deep space craft, and it is still being built that way. except for the launch escape system, which is why it is being used at ISS as an escape vehicle for it's initial flights. But all the systems will be there for when the U.S. gets off it's ass and decides to use Orion to visit the Moon, asteroids, or go to Mars.
Nowhereman10 1 year ago
@Jimbob8971 Orion has not been cancelled. Constellation has been cancelled, as well as the Ares family of rockets, but not Orion. The first Orion capsule has been finished up structurally and has been shipped out for final outfitting and then for a series of extensive tests.
Nowhereman10 1 year ago
Congraz!!
BTW where is their T-shirt shop???? We need Dragon's T!
midlothianboy 1 year ago
It is? You are aware that the Orion LES has been built and tested numerous times, right? You are aware that LockMart is fabricating parts for Orion's structrual test article, and is seriously considering an unmanned test flight in 2013 on a Delta IV Heavy, right? You might want to go look up some real info since you only seem to be wearing blinders right now. Try Google searching 'Orion capsule flight hardware' and see what comes up. You may be suprised.
Nowhereman10 1 year ago
wow its time to privatize the space industry and bring in more competition and innovation :)
gleefanatic2011 1 year ago
Wow did you see that roll? It turned like 90 degrees before even clearing the tower. (watch the SpaceX sign on the bottom of teh rocket.)
gk123434534 1 year ago
Comment removed
davisgreen2020 1 year ago
Wow no boosters and it lifts 4,000kgs! Cool...
KarthikSoun 1 year ago
Cant help to notice that it looks like a penis. But cool!
dotsona07 1 year ago
why so many engines in the first stage? are they copying the russians now?
bombarderoazul 1 year ago
@bombarderoazul These are the same engines as used on the Falcon 1. The Falcon 1 requires only one Merlin engine. So that SpaceX didn't have to develop an entirely new engine for the Falcon 9, it uses a modular design that employs 9 of the same engine used on the Falcon 1.
Even if SpaceX were copying the Russians, progress in engineering relies on building on past designs, much like evolution. Please don't be so cynical from the outset just because you don't understand something.
psyclistic 1 year ago
@bombarderoazul... By using an array of nine smaller engines (merlin 1C's) vs one giant one such as Rocketdyne's J2 you get a lot advantages. Each engine is much smaller and can be moved around and installed using a standard fork lift. It can also be shipped by a standard truck and flown as standard cargo on an aircraft . Also each engine only produces 1/9 of the over all thrust making the engine design easier.
coldforgedcowboy 1 year ago
@coldforgedcowboy Funny how the same concept on the Russian N1 rocket was heavily criticized. Falcon 9 has 9 small engines, Falcon 9 Heavy will have 27 small engines, not too far from 30 engines on the N1. The N1 did not fly not because the concept was wrong, but because of lack of proper testing. Falcon 9 confirms that a multi-engined rocket can fly.
LeadHammer 1 year ago
@NJRocks281 It is interesting, he is going through a divorce and she wants lots o money, and he claims "I am broke, been borrowing money from friends" coincidence?
pointmanzero 1 year ago
the transcribed audio is classic
memberHD 1 year ago
@memberHD haha, i know.. you can spend days just watching random videos with transcribed audio and laugh your ass off..
RufftaMan 1 year ago
do a barrel roll
detibry 1 year ago
There is something more elegant about a kerosene powered rocket vs. the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle/ares. No giant fireball. Minimal smoke. Why did NASA make the change?
Tubeglowfun 1 year ago
@Tubeglowfun The STS SRBs were a design compromise made decades ago to save R&D money. Originally STS would have used one of several flyback or recovereable liquid fuel-powered systems, but would have cost the program more than the Nixon administration and Congress were willing to spend. But Ariane 5 as well as other successful rocket systems make use of SRBs for first stage assist because they are cheap, simple, and generally reliable systems that give a lot of thrust.
Nowhereman10 1 year ago
@Nowhereman10 "The STS SRBs were a design compromise made decades ago to save R&D money"
No, they they were a no-compromise money transfer to the interested parties in Utah. (Of course it didn't make Utah any more livable. Let's wait how Mars is going to fare. ;-))
Tia1ko 1 year ago
@Tia1ko They were a compromise. It was cheaper developmentally to design SRB's than for LRB's. Operationally though, LRB's would have been cheaper.
spacevidcast 1 year ago
why does the official 1430 launch time, contradict the onboard timer of 1840?
gcsurfer100 1 year ago
looks good to me
wildboy789789 1 year ago
Yeah, and and good thing nobody trusted 2 bicycle builders from Ohio who just built gliders and eventually the first airplane. @NJRocks281
LennonHat 1 year ago
@LennonHat The Wright Brothers didn't build the first powered airplane. Dr. Samuel Pierpont Langley among many others pioneered that years before. Look up the history of his Aerodromes 5-6. What the Wright Bros succeeded with was making the first *manned* heavier- than-air aircraft.
Nowhereman10 1 year ago
@Nowhereman10 Not even that, i'm afraid. Before the wright brothers Clement Ader flew an engine powered heavier than air aircraft in Paris.
He built and flew several airplanes before the first wright flight.
fernbap 1 year ago
@fernbap Yes, as I said in my post "among many others pioneered that years before". Ader is a bit controversial for while he did construct and fly several smaller models as Langley did in the 1890s, it is uncertain whether the claims of his having flown his Avion III successfully manned ever happened or not. But at the very least the Wright Bros. are not even close to being the first to have made the first heavier-than-air aircraft. Just the first documented successful manned one.
Nowhereman10 1 year ago
@Nowhereman10 Gustav Weisskopf?
CaptainNomura 1 year ago
This is just awesome! I love how quickly after liftoff you can see the curve of the earth. I mean this thing really rockets into space! I'm proud to know one of the engineers who works on the Falcon 9.
AdmrlLocke 1 year ago
@AdmrlLocke it's true how fast it is but you really dont need to be that high to see the curve of the earth :) just go somewhere with no building and climb a hill :L
hawkmoth11 1 year ago
@NJRocks281 That is a very strange attitude. So you are saying that somebody like Henry Ford wouldn't deserve any credit, since he did not invent the combustion engine. Science and engineering does not work that way. And by the way, Tesla holds 14 patents from developing the battery system, 8 of which are on the name of Musk him self. Not counting SpaceX and Solar city. Quit bickering, the guy is a genius.
miankd 1 year ago
@miankd Yes, Elon is brilliant. He also has a lot of brilliant people working around him.
psyclistic 1 year ago
@NJRocks281 And who would these giants be? All of his companies started pretty much for scratch. I am very well aware of Musk's cash problem. That doesn't make him poor or bankrupt if you understand the difference between net worth and cash. As for efficiency, I will concede if you can find one single example in history of a company that designed, manufactured and successfully launched a medium-to-heavy lift rocket in just 8 years of existence a 1/4 the cost.
miankd 1 year ago
@NJRocks281 Get your facts right, he is the actual product architect for both the falcon 9 and the tesla model S. He has a degree in physics and is involved in every technical bit of his products. Like steve jobs and bill gates, he is closer to an engineer than to a business man in my opinion, that's what makes him so efficient.
miankd 1 year ago
@NJRocks281 to be fair Elon Musk was the FOUNDER of paypal as well as Tesla Motors and SpaceX. He's kind of the real life equivalent of Tony Stark. Indeed Jon Favreau, the director of Iron Man 1 and 2, said that for the movies he modeled the character off of Elon Musk. Also SpaceX is a company specifically devoted to space exploration and rocketry, Lockheed Martin is primarily an airplane company.
crimsonninja6995 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Will SpaceX be our savors, I sure hope so...... I sure hope so......
Lets see if the manned Dragon will fly which will be the first private manned mission into orbit.
caseygtr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Will SpaceX be our saviors, I sure hope so...... I sure hope so......
Lets see if the Dragon will fly which will be the first private manned mission into orbit.
caseygtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
caseygtr 1 year ago
Wow seeing that Engine start in the Second Stage is amazing...The camera placement was Very well done... I don't think anyone has ever seen the actual engine nozzle fire while in escape. Great Job guys! best of luck!
desertfox2403 1 year ago
Who says it's dangerous? The preeminent rocket engineer of the 20th century "Wernher von Braun". Wernher von Braun was against using solid rocket fuel for manned missions. I would rather ride in an untested falcon9 than ride in Ares1 or Shuttle. Lockheed Martin has more PROFIT motive than any other company.
ti994apc 1 year ago
Buy Spacex when ipo hits
MrSueVeneer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
did I hear a guy screaming "FUUUCKK MEEEEE!!!" in the background??
trisky1234 1 year ago
The spiral and bright light was visible over central nsw at 5:45am, only a few minutes after blast off.
aussieblokes1964 1 year ago
Was absolutely awesome seeing this live....Well worth the sunburn!
redstone1963 1 year ago
This is the rocket that was soposed to be responceable for the spiral seen in aystralia 1 hour later....how fast does it go,from what i worked out it went 15000 km in that hour to be above Australia,12 times the speed of sound....?
rrmert 1 year ago
@rrmert
The velocity in low Earth orbit is about 28,000 km/hour, however, the first 9 minutes of the flight involve getting up to that speed.
lithiumdeuteride 1 year ago
It was a beautiful launch and a great flight. I really enjoyed seeing it live. Just those idiots with their boats. Jeez!
Curious how this will work out on the long run.
higuma75 1 year ago
NASA Ares1 "dangerous", only holds 4 Astronauts, 1 billion per flight.
Falcon 9 "safe", will hold 7 Astronauts, 48 million per flight.
Lets do the math: we can launch almost "147" Astronauts for the price of "4" Astronauts with the dangerous Ares 1.
ti994apc 1 year ago
Congrats!
mrmeder 1 year ago
ppsst! it's LEAKING!
Aussiemoo 1 year ago
Besides the fact that Falcon9 being much safer than Ares . Falcon9 is estimated to have a recurring cost of almost $45.8 Million per flight. Ares 1 is estimated to have a recurring cost of almost $1Billion per flight.
ti994apc 1 year ago
UGH. I kept looking very frequently to find out when they were going to launch and I missed it. joy.
EggYolk 1 year ago
we need to inspire more company's to do this type of thing and prehaps see better development. Becuase i thinks there would be a lot better craft made than what has been made in ten years than we have seen since the 1070's space program by government bodies.
aco12231964 1 year ago
Looks like the roll control actuator failed - it's always the cheap(er) parts :-P
Still, 99.5% of what they needed to do and then some, so a very good launch. Senators Hutchinson and Shelby can now put on their propeller beanies, go sit in the corner and shut the hell up.
docmordrid 1 year ago
To Infinity, and Beyond!!!
ReadmanJ 1 year ago
Great launch!
oisiaa 1 year ago
Did they say New Hampshire station?
Riolu7777 1 year ago
This is so much better than Ares1. Safer, carries more people, and fraction of the cost. I am sure Lockheed Martin will be using all its lobbying power to stop this.
ti994apc 1 year ago
If the US used Falcon9 to carry people to space as a Soyuz counter part. We could launch 3 times a month vs 3 times a year with Shuttle or Ares.
ti994apc 1 year ago
This launch is more about how NASA can do business in the future. NASA works on a cost + plus model with their contractors. NASA pay the "contractors cost" plus a % for profit. The contractors can not lose money.
SpaceX charges a fixed amount per launch. They are not going to waste $.
Example, SpaceX laid some railroad track and made a simple lunch tower.
NASA spent $500 million on the Ares 1 "launch tower" alone. Why because they make more if they spend more or your tax dollars!
jim6584 1 year ago
@jim6584
Safety is far more important. And the Ares I a far more powerful rocket.
Launching a human crew will be far more difficult than this launch as it will need
a launch abort system. More cost, More TAX dollars. I just don't see this space craft inspiring generations of Americans for decades like the Apollo or the Shuttle did. I mean ....Look at it.....its a flying Mailing Tube.
Kapitananime 1 year ago
Comment removed
ti994apc 1 year ago
@Kapitananime
Falcon 9 is light years safer than Ares in every way! Ares only carries 5 people (even know its the size and cost of Saturn V). Falcon 9 carries 7 people at a fraction of the cost because its not made by Lockeed. Basically, we can take 48-64 people to space with Falcon9 vs 5 people with Ares 1at the same cost and falcon9 is a much safer system.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc
I think the Dragon only carries 4 people and the Ares 1 is nowhere near the size of a Saturn V (maybe in height).
oisiaa 1 year ago
@oisiaa
Dragon will be able to carry 7 people : )
pacificguitarist 1 year ago
@pacificguitarist
Prove that. I have not read any data on that number.
Kapitananime 1 year ago
Comment removed
ti994apc 1 year ago
Comment removed
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc
No. The Orion has a planned capacity of 6 and an emergency of 8. The Dragon capsule has not been built and Space X has a long way to go before it LEARNS
the reality of running a manned space program at a PROFIT.
Kapitananime 1 year ago
@Kapitananime
Wrong. you can read it right of nasa's web sight: nasawatch. com/archives/2009/04/orion-slims-down. html
The Orion crew capsule will ONLY HOLD 4 astronauts.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc Orion is designed to take six astronauts to the ISS and four to the moon. But Constellation's dead, soit doesn't really matter.
kerminator29 1 year ago
@kerminator29 As far as I know it is not dead yet. They are still working on such project right?
nonamedyet 1 year ago
@nonamedyet Its being debating - the president suggested they kill it but there's a lot of ruffled feathers. Regardless, many have seen this coming for ages because the program has been starved for money for a long time by previous congresses and the previous administration, producing a significant 'gap'. Personally I don't see congress actually committing the necessary money. But that is just my bias.
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@ti994apc You are aware that Orion is a much more massive and twice the volume in the capsule and service module than does Dragon in order to support deep-space missions for months at a time? That's why Ares I had to be able to lift over 25 metric tons to LEO. Dragon in order to match Orion would need to not only be bigger, but heavily modified beyond what Elon Musk and other Space X people have described. So your comparing a Winebago (Orion) to a mini-van here.
Nowhereman10 1 year ago
Comment removed
ti994apc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nowhereman10 Dragon has more Habitable Volume and carries 7 people to Ares 4 people. Orion's endurance is 210 days while Dragon is up to 940 days. Cost wise you have have almost 25 Dragons for the price of 1 Orion. That also equates to over 150 astronauts in space to ares 4 astronauts. Dragon can parachute safely to the ground. Ares1 needs to lift so much weight because the giant crew escape system needed for dangerous solid rocket fuel.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@Nowhereman10 Dragon is still more capable now than Orion. even if only based on track record. Dragon orbital - proven, Orion sub-orbital - simulated. And furthermore, Dragon has roughly the same pressurized volume and better heat shield when compared to the Orion capsule.
reinrod01 1 year ago
@reinrod01 That's not really true. Again, you are trying to compare a minivan (Dragon) to a cross-country Winnebago (Orion). Orion's pressurized volume is a little over 19.5 m^3, while Dragon's is 10 m^3. It's simple geometry since Orion's capsule is 5 m wide and 3.3 m tall, while Dragon's is only 2.9 x 3.6 m. Again, As far as track record, Orion has something that Dragon currently does not: A fully functioning and tested LES. Dragon is estimated to need another $1 billion and 3 years for that.
Nowhereman10 1 year ago
@Nowhereman10 orion is still conceptual and another 1.3 billion to fly a test flight and with the cancelation of Ares 1, is now a vehicle with out wheels. it's more like comparing a minivan to a custom van when you look at useble volume internal volume.
reinrod01 1 year ago
@Kapitananime stop being a little hating bitch..... SpaceX is doing exactly what you said they would never be able to do, Elon Musk should be dangling his nuts in your mouth right now saying "HAHA I told you so"
jpourkav 1 year ago
Comment removed
ti994apc 1 year ago
@Kapitananime
Where do I begin?
Ares had performance shortfalls. It is for that reason that Orion's capability to land on land was stripped away. It was considered to be too heavy for Ares 1.
Ares 1 had so far cost $9 billion to make and they hadn't even made the second stage much less reach orbit. Falcon 9 development cost has been $250 million (someone fact check me on that one.)
Falcon 9 is also NOT funded by the government therefore does not place the burden on the tax payer.
pacificguitarist 1 year ago
@Kapitananime
True..... spacex has won contracts for NASA... but that is very different from NASA footing the bill for development.
The falcon 9 is also the first truly 21st century American rocket, rather than technology used from the 50s-70s. There are a large number of innovations such as using the same engines on both stages in order to cut development costs AND it will be a fully reusable launch vehicle.
hopefully this will clear some of your misconceptions.
pacificguitarist 1 year ago
@pacificguitarist
Fully reusable? I'll "fact check" you on that one. I love the Falcon 9, but even Elon Musk seems dubious as to whether they can reuse the SECOND stage. Try taking a piece of that hardware that size and slowing it down, landing it, recovering it, and refurbishing. It's several orders of magnitude more expensive than just reusing the first stage. Does anybody know if they recovered the F9 first stage?
asams10 1 year ago
@asams10
They have not. The first stage broke up on its way down.
Kapitananime 1 year ago
@pacificguitarist
Its reusable first stage did not survive this launch. So it has yet to prove that feature.
Space X is using government funds and they are long way from a MAN RATED space craft and Rocket.
Kapitananime 1 year ago
@Kapitananime
The Dragon was designed from the start to me man rated.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc
It has no escape system and is months away from that. The Falcon 9 is not man rated.
Kapitananime 1 year ago
@Kapitananime Falcon 9 is designed to be eventually man-rated. Right now, it is to be used for the unmanned (but pressurized) Dragon cargo COTS missions to the International Space Station. As such, it does not need any crew escape system. Once a number of flights have been made and the Falcon 9 has proved itself, the manned version of Dragon *with a crew escape system* is expected to be finalized and eventually used to ferry people into orbit.
1sorryham 1 year ago
@Kapitananime
It is actually years away from a launch escape system. Qualifying those systems takes a long, long time.
However, you are mistaken about the man-rating. Insofar as NASA has actually defined what 'man-rated' means, Falcon 9 meets those specifications.
lithiumdeuteride 1 year ago
@Kapitananime
It is suppose to "eventually" be reusable. This is only a demo flight.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@Kapitananime Well that show how little you know about rockets. Keep your shithead buried in anime and stop worrying about safety and spending more tax dollars. I hope you the end of the line of your lineage of shitheads.
Imat00l 1 year ago
@Kapitananime
Ares I is a big bottle rocket with people on top. The test launch was with four segmented rocket, because the manufacturer did not have combustion instability in five-segment rocket sorted out, not that they had any idea how to do it properly anyway. One of the solutions called out for a mass dampener. Doesn't THAT sound like a plan, using dead weight to cancel out shortcomings in a flawed concept. I'm glad beyond words to see Ares go. It's an inefficient death-trap if anything.
KarriKoivusalo 1 year ago
@NLonDS thanks
Daisycutt3r 1 year ago
For some info on the Falcon 9 "UFO" check badastronomy blog. Just google "badastronomy falcon ufo".
inhumator 1 year ago
@NLonDS I know the answers to my questions ... I just would really really like spacevidcast. to comment .. as well no one is listening , and to hear it from the horses mouth would be a great help.
Daisycutt3r 1 year ago
How long before this rocket can carry humans ! And when will SPACE-X have a heavy lift rocket like that of the AresV ?!!!
kurt30001 1 year ago
@kurt30001 About three years, say SpaceX. They are building a heavy-lift version of the Falcon 9 called the Falcon 9 Heavy (they weren't feeling too imaginative when they named it).
It would have two extra Falcon 9 1st stages act as boosters so you would have the normal Falcon 9 1st stage with two more one on either side, giving you 27 engines on the 1st stage and the same 2nd stage as the normal Falcon 9 (1xMerlin 1C engine). It will be able to lift up to 32,000 kg to LEO or 19,500 kg to GTO.
joshatkins94 1 year ago
@kurt30001
They suspect a 3 years gap before Space X can launch a manned space craft.
Space X has no plans on building a HLV like the Ares V.
Kapitananime 1 year ago
303rd...
eurythorpe 1 year ago
From a local flight test engineer...congratulations! Great work! Looks like commercial space flight has arrived!
hunlest 1 year ago
that wasp was like omg wtf!!!
Nasiar99 1 year ago 2
@Nasiar99 lol
RadicalAwesomeness 1 year ago
302nd viewer!
hawkmoth11 1 year ago
Did you hear the interesting addendum to this launch?
There were reports along the Eastern seaboard of Australia at ~06:30 of a UFO, with a circular spiral pattern eminating from it's centre. It was later announced on the news that the time's correlated very closely to the launch time, & flight path.
Anamnesia 1 year ago
@Anamnesia I actually have some questions regarding this matter.
If the rocket was visible from aus. how long after launch would it be seen in australian skys?
If viewed from the ground in australia , would it be a large light or a small spec, like a satellite?
when viewed from ground lvl , would the rocket be low , or high in the sky?
If you guys could answer these questions it would clear a few things up for a few for a great deal of people.
thanks for any time spent answering .
cheers
Daisycutt3r 1 year ago
@Daisycutt3r Google is your friend! Try; ufo eastern australia
Anamnesia 1 year ago
This camera is bugged!
bunga40 1 year ago 18
@bunga40 ಠ_ಠ
pringlex 1 year ago
@bunga40 nice!
Palgh 1 year ago
@bunga40
Not just the camera, switch on 'Transcribe Audio' and see what's said @ 3:22
pkscolax 1 year ago
nice!!!!
britishareawesome69 1 year ago 6
woo hoo first view!
noxnflame 1 year ago