Successful Falcon 9 Launch

[sunzt]

what the mono fails to realize is that NASA has a systems engineering role in approving and helping space x meet designated milestones. NASA works with spacex to make sure that whatever spacex builds meets their requirements and can be certified for cargo or crew missions. NASA does their own analysis and simulations to determine what requirements spacex needs to meet. NASA points out gaps and issues that spacex may overlook, which may lead to potentially failing a review.

So it's not "oh private industry is awesome, but NASA bad", but rather private industry is working with NASA to develop a transportation system to fulfill NASA's goals and leveraging each entity's strengths to the fullest. Besides, SpaceX would never be where it is now without the crucial COTS funding that NASA provided to them early on.

The reason spacex is getting success for its rockets is due to their talented team, NASA system engineering, and NASA funding.

 

[ichy]

The other big pucker factor with the Saturn V was the first 10 seconds of the flight. If you suffered a failed engine in the first 10 seconds you where basically screwed. The remaining 4 engines didn't have enough thrust to get the rocket ascending.

At least the crew had a viable escape system.

 

[EagleKeeper]

At least the crew had a viable escape system.

After it was learned that an escape system might be viable.
RIP Grissom, White, Chaffee

 

[hal2kilo]

After it was learned that an escape system might be viable.
RIP Grissom, White, Chaffee

I doubt very much that they would have survived even then. They died very quickly.

 

[monovillage]

what the mono fails to realize is that NASA has a systems engineering role in approving and helping space x meet designated milestones. NASA works with spacex to make sure that whatever spacex builds meets their requirements and can be certified for cargo or crew missions. NASA does their own analysis and simulations to determine what requirements spacex needs to meet. NASA points out gaps and issues that spacex may overlook, which may lead to potentially failing a review.

So it's not "oh private industry is awesome, but NASA bad", but rather private industry is working with NASA to develop a transportation system to fulfill NASA's goals and leveraging each entity's strengths to the fullest. Besides, SpaceX would never be where it is now without the crucial COTS funding that NASA provided to them early on.

The reason spacex is getting success for its rockets is due to their talented team, NASA system engineering, and NASA funding.

My problem is that with the bloated bureaucracy of NASA what should be accomplished in 2 years and cost $1 billion takes 3 years and costs $4 billion. Or are you saying that NASA isn't either inefficient or a bureaucracy?

 

[sunzt]

My problem is that with the bloated bureaucracy of NASA what should be accomplished in 2 years and cost $1 billion takes 3 years and costs $4 billion. Or are you saying that NASA isn't either inefficient or a bureaucracy?

The whole reason NASA is funding this commercial space push is to become more cost effective and efficient, but you can't throw away safety and standards in the process. Not sure why you're hating them when they're trying to improve cost effectiveness.

 

[ichy]

After it was learned that an escape system might be viable.
RIP Grissom, White, Chaffee

I was referring to the Launch Escape System that would've pulled a capsule clear of an exploding rocket. That was part of the design well before the Apollo 1 disaster.

 

[ichy]

My problem is that with the bloated bureaucracy of NASA what should be accomplished in 2 years and cost $1 billion takes 3 years and costs $4 billion. Or are you saying that NASA isn't either inefficient or a bureaucracy?

I'd bet $100 you can't show any specific examples of the "bloated bureaucracy of NASA" and are instead simply repeating bullshit you've heard somewhere else.

 

[Brovane]

At least the crew had a viable escape system.

Actually probably not in this instance with with the rocket being so close to the tower and just starting the launch sequence. It was estimated that a fully fueled Saturn V if it exploded would have had about the effect of around a 2,000 tons of TNT going off, so basically a 2 Kiloton bomb. The launch escape system in the first 10-15 seconds probably wouldn't have been able to pull them clear to escape the size of this explosion. This is one reason why there is two main launch pads at the Cape. The had both Pad-A and Pad-B even though they used Pad-A for all the launches except for Apollo-10. It was thought that if a Saturn V exploded that it would demolish the launch Pad so they wanted a second one so if necessary they could still keep pushing forward to meet the deadline of landing on the moon before the end of the decade if a Saturn V exploded during a launch.

 

[monovillage]

There's even a website for it.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/02/nasa-budget-to.html

and a satirical video

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100346538

but I made it all up and the $5 or $6 Billion a year budget(Yearly average about $10 Billion) is always spent wisely and frugally.

 

[Nintendesert]

Oooo a satirical video! That's proof now! I HATES NASA!!!

 

[Brovane]

what the mono fails to realize is that NASA has a systems engineering role in approving and helping space x meet designated milestones. NASA works with spacex to make sure that whatever spacex builds meets their requirements and can be certified for cargo or crew missions. NASA does their own analysis and simulations to determine what requirements spacex needs to meet. NASA points out gaps and issues that spacex may overlook, which may lead to potentially failing a review.

So it's not "oh private industry is awesome, but NASA bad", but rather private industry is working with NASA to develop a transportation system to fulfill NASA's goals and leveraging each entity's strengths to the fullest. Besides, SpaceX would never be where it is now without the crucial COTS funding that NASA provided to them early on.

The reason spacex is getting success for its rockets is due to their talented team, NASA system engineering, and NASA funding.

You are correct. Space X and the other companies are getting significant help from NASA. However a key difference over other NASA contracts is that the COTS contracts are fixed priced contracts instead of cost-plus contracts. If there are any cost over-runs Space X has to make up the gap not NASA (IE US taxpayer). In the traditional contracts with NASA any cost overruns, NASA would just go back to Congress and ask for more money. Also congress has a habit of sticking there nose into places where it doesn't belong and can dictate funding based on certain engineering criteria. For example the SLS rocket system the contract was drawn up in such a way that it is essentially a single source contract because it mandates that shuttle engines be re-used. So there was really no open bidding process. That is why it will cost at least 15 billion and I have no doubt that there will be cost over-runs.

Also NASA is not really operating the rocket or space vehicle. The rocket and space vehicle are owned by Space X. NASA is essentially paying for the delivery service. Space X has mission criteria set by NASA but the missions are run by Space X until the capsule is within 10 meters or so of ISS and then NASA takes over and uses the robotic arm to bring the capsule in. So any innovation that Space X wants to do is up to them and they have the flexibility. For example next year there will be a new up-rated Merlin 1D engine for what they are calling the Falcon 9 v1.1. This engine will add several tons to the payload capacity. Space X didn't have to seek permission from NASA to innovate. Also the Falcon 9 is built to be re-usable and Space X is already working on this. If Space X gets it figured out any savings they make in future launches they get to keep under the current contract. The Dragon capsule is built to be re-usable. The didn't have to ask permission from NASA or congress to do this.

 

[Brovane]

I'd bet $100 you can't show any specific examples of the "bloated bureaucracy of NASA" and are instead simply repeating bullshit you've heard somewhere else.

I would point to the Challenger disaster and Columbia disaster as specific examples of bloated bureaucracy.

For example in the Challenger disaster the NASA bureaucracy had "go fever" and put a lot of pressure on the contractor. Even though ever sense the shuttle first launched they new there was issues with the SRB and blow through on the O-rings where found on previous launches. However NASA refused to acknowledge the problem and pushed everybody to move forward because they wanted to get the launch count up no matter what and where not going to stop for a SRB blow through issue on the O-Rings.

Columbia mission there was failure in the NASA management to acknowledge the engineer concerns early on after the launch that significant damage could have happened to the tiles. They just ignored it and hoped for the best. Not even mentioned that tile damaged had happened before. On STS-27 severe tile damage was found because of insulation material coming off during launch. The crew was lucky that they had made it home. The shuttle commander even expressed his reservations in orbit when they did a tile inspection and the NASA leadership told him the damage was no big deal. Did the NASA do anything after this, No. They did a report and the report was filed away.

Do I get $100.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Those aren't examples of a bloated bureaucracy. Those are examples where their cost:benefit analysis was incorrect/failure because of the bypass of safety regulations.

As for the O-rings, the failure was in the private sector, where the contractor dismissed NASA safety regulations an offered up the O-Ring knowing that there were desgn flaws. As for NASA, to launch go ahead was only given because the order bypassed the shuttle managers who would have stopped the launch because they knew that the risks were, while upper management was not informed of the O-ring issue, again because the contractor had no contacted them about it.

As for columbia, the final conclusion was that, too much power was given to very few people and often had conflicting objectives to give the go ahead on launch, and that this consolidation of power allowed them to bypass normal safety checkpoints that would have prevented the launch.

Basically both accidents happened because power rested in the hands of few management officials and all the bloat that allowed checks on the launch were bypassed in the name of results. This is the EXACT opposite of a bloated bureaucracy.

 

[Brovane]

Those aren't examples of a bloated bureaucracy. Those are examples where their cost:benefit analysis was incorrect/failure because of the bypass of safety regulations.

As for the O-rings, the failure was in the private sector, where the contractor dismissed NASA safety regulations an offered up the O-Ring knowing that there were desgn flaws. As for NASA, to launch go ahead was only given because the order bypassed the shuttle managers who would have stopped the launch because they knew that the risks were, while upper management was not informed of the O-ring issue, again because the contractor had no contacted them about it.

As for columbia, the final conclusion was that, too much power was given to very few people and often had conflicting objectives to give the go ahead on launch, and that this consolidation of power allowed them to bypass normal safety checkpoints that would have prevented the launch.

Basically both accidents happened because power rested in the hands of few management officials and all the bloat that allowed checks on the launch were bypassed in the name of results. This is the EXACT opposite of a bloated bureaucracy.

I disagree I see this as because of bloated bureaucracy no one was accountable for anything and no action was taken despite repeated close calls before the lose of crew and vehicles.

 

[monovillage]

OOPS

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-space-spacex-idUSBRE89B18M20121012

 

[Brainonska511]

OOPS

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-space-spacex-idUSBRE89B18M20121012

Is it really an oops or are you just trying to paint egg on people's faces? SpaceX's Falcon 9 did complete its primary mission in this case.

With its remaining eight engines making up the lost power, the rocket successfully completed its primary mission, sending a Dragon cargo capsule to the International Space Station. The flight was the first of 12 for NASA under a $1.6 billion contract.


To ensure the station's safety, the agreement with NASA prohibited Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX as the privately-held California-based company is known, from restarting the rocket's second stage - needed to deliver Orbcomm's satellite to its proper orbit - if there was not at least a 99 percent chance that the rocket had enough fuel to complete the burn, said SpaceX spokeswoman Katherine Nelson.


Due to the engine shutdown, the Falcon 9 used slightly more fuel and oxygen to reach Dragon's intended 202 mile- (325-km) high orbit. Over the next 2.5 days, Dragon flew itself to the station's orbit 250 miles above Earth. It reached the $100 billion outpost, a project of 15 countries, on Wednesday.

 

[monovillage]

Is it really an oops or are you just trying to paint egg on people's faces? SpaceX's Falcon 9 did complete its primary mission in this case.

How exciting.

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., Oct 12 - An experimental communications satellite flying piggyback aboard a Space Exploration Technologies' Falcon 9 rocket fell out of orbit and burned up in the atmosphere following a problem during liftoff, satellite operator Orbcomm said on Friday.

The New Jersey-based company's OG2 satellite was a prototype for a new 17-member communications satellite network scheduled to be launched aboard two more Falcon 9 rockets in 2013 and 2014.

Orbcomm declared the satellite a total loss and filed a claim under an insurance policy worth up to $10 million, "which would largely offset the expected cost of the OG2 prototype and associated launch services and launch insurance," the company said in a statement.

 

[Paratus]

I disagree I see this as because of bloated bureaucracy no one was accountable for anything and no action was taken despite repeated close calls before the lose of crew and vehicles.

If you guys are interested in the causes of Colimbia I suggest you check out the CAIB Report here:

http://caib.nasa.gov/news/report/volume1/default.html

There's some interesting things in there about both what happened to Columbia and how management reacted.

I'm required to read parts of it every 18 months as part of my proficiency in my job.

 

[Agent11]

Why all the hate of Nasa? You obviously don't realize all the benefits modern society has recieved from the space program.

 

[Darwin333]

The really big pucker factor with the Shuttle where the SRB's. Once those things ignited there was no turning them off. The Saturn V and Falcon 9 since they used all liquid fuel they could do a pad abort even with all engines ignited since the engines could be turned off.

The other big pucker factor with the Saturn V was the first 10 seconds of the flight. If you suffered a failed engine in the first 10 seconds you where basically screwed. The remaining 4 engines didn't have enough thrust to get the rocket ascending. After the first 10 seconds you burned off enough fuel that the rocket was light enough that only with 4 F1 engines you could keep going up.

Thats where I was messed up. I probably learned this from some documentary and they probably were talking about the SRBs but I thought once they lit the "rockets" it was a one way trip, no off button at all. I didn't realize that only went for the solid fueled rockets and not the liquid filled ones (would anyone care to give me a quick rundown of why they used two different fuels on the same vehicle??) which is why I thought any sort of hold down system would be some sort of insane marvel of engineering to hold down all that thrust for however long it burns for.

 

[Darwin333]

My problem is that with the bloated bureaucracy of NASA what should be accomplished in 2 years and cost $1 billion takes 3 years and costs $4 billion. Or are you saying that NASA isn't either inefficient or a bureaucracy?

The problem is that the private sector simply will not fill the void and do what NASA does. If there was no NASA there would have been no Falcon launch, period. If there never was a NASA our understanding of the cosmos would be absurdly less than it is today. What exactly do you propose, the .gov "contracting" it out? Same .gov involved, same bureaucracy, same cost overruns, etc.... Actually, once you throw the necessity to profit into a venture that is, by its very nature unprofitable in any sort of reasonable time frame, its hard to imagine it not costing more.

With that said, I still don't get why we can go to the moon back in the days when we knew dickall about space or the rockets to get them there faster than we can build a vehicle to get people to the space station sitting in LEO today. With all of our advancements in not only the technology but in manufacturing and whatnot, that just boggles my mind.

 

[Brovane]

Thats where I was messed up. I probably learned this from some documentary and they probably were talking about the SRBs but I thought once they lit the "rockets" it was a one way trip, no off button at all. I didn't realize that only went for the solid fueled rockets and not the liquid filled ones (would anyone care to give me a quick rundown of why they used two different fuels on the same vehicle??) which is why I thought any sort of hold down system would be some sort of insane marvel of engineering to hold down all that thrust for however long it burns for.

Solid rocket boosters provide more thrust per lb and don't have the refrigeration requirements that liquid fuel has. When designing the space shuttle they needed to get the payload higher for Pentagon for satellite deployment so they opted for solid rocket boosters that allowed the higher payloads. Several un-manned rockets that launch satellites use strap-on solid boosters for exactly this purpose.

 

[Brovane]

The problem is that the private sector simply will not fill the void and do what NASA does. If there was no NASA there would have been no Falcon launch, period. If there never was a NASA our understanding of the cosmos would be absurdly less than it is today. What exactly do you propose, the .gov "contracting" it out? Same .gov involved, same bureaucracy, same cost overruns, etc.... Actually, once you throw the necessity to profit into a venture that is, by its very nature unprofitable in any sort of reasonable time frame, its hard to imagine it not costing more.

With that said, I still don't get why we can go to the moon back in the days when we knew dickall about space or the rockets to get them there faster than we can build a vehicle to get people to the space station sitting in LEO today. With all of our advancements in not only the technology but in manufacturing and whatnot, that just boggles my mind.

Why we cannot go back to the moon right now is we lack a heavy lift vehicle to get into orbit. You basically take the lift capability of a rocket and take 35-40% of that and that is what you can put into TLI which is trans lunar injection. This is just a rough number and isn't exact but it is accurate enough for this discussion. When NASA/Congress/Nixon administration stopped Saturn V production in the 60's and then shutdown the production line in 1972 we lost this capability.

There have been discussions of using fuel depots etc to build a vehicle in orbit however the storage of liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen in orbit has it's own challenges. The shuttle could get around 53,000lb into LEO and the Saturn V could put around 260,000lb into LEO. The falcon 9 heavy if Space X can get it to fly in the next year or so will be able to put 120,000lb into LEO which is still less than 1/2 what the Saturn V could do. When you look at Heavy Launch systems on the USSR Energia system which could put around 220,000lb into LEO came close and it only flew once and has been retired. The next rocket down on the list is the Falcon 9 Heavy and it hasn't even flown yet. The current heavy lift champion is the Delta IV Heavy which can do around 50,000lb into LEO. There is really nothing else that even has come close to the Saturn V for its capability to put tonnage into orbit. We(the US) literally through this production capability away. Which is why since 12/72 when Apollo 17 returned no humans have been outside low earth orbit since.

 

[SsupernovaE]

Why we cannot go back to the moon right now is we lack a heavy lift vehicle to get into orbit. You basically take the lift capability of a rocket and take 35-40% of that and that is what you can put into TLI which is trans lunar injection. This is just a rough number and isn't exact but it is accurate enough for this discussion. When NASA/Congress/Nixon administration stopped Saturn V production in the 60's and then shutdown the production line in 1972 we lost this capability.

There have been discussions of using fuel depots etc to build a vehicle in orbit however the storage of liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen in orbit has it's own challenges. The shuttle could get around 53,000lb into LEO and the Saturn V could put around 260,000lb into LEO. The falcon 9 heavy if Space X can get it to fly in the next year or so will be able to put 120,000lb into LEO which is still less than 1/2 what the Saturn V could do. When you look at Heavy Launch systems on the USSR Energia system which could put around 220,000lb into LEO came close and it only flew once and has been retired. The next rocket down on the list is the Falcon 9 Heavy and it hasn't even flown yet. The current heavy lift champion is the Delta IV Heavy which can do around 50,000lb into LEO. There is really nothing else that even has come close to the Saturn V for its capability to put tonnage into orbit. We(the US) literally through this production capability away. Which is why since 12/72 when Apollo 17 returned no humans have been outside low earth orbit since.

The SLS will best the Saturn V.