Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(118,295 posts)
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 07:25 PM Mar 2013

Commercial Spaceflight Industry Drifts Back to Earth


By John Matson | March 6, 2013

... space exploration is hard, no matter who you are, what your business model is, or what engineering innovations you bring to the table. (There’s a reason people use “rocket science” as shorthand for something difficult.) And the first two official SpaceX deliveries to the ISS, while successful, have each served as a reality check—a valuable reminder of the enormous complexity and high stakes of spaceflight.

During the first commercial resupply mission, in October 2012, one of the nine engines on the Falcon 9 rocket lost pressure and shut down about 80 seconds into flight. The rocket still delivered its primary payload to orbit, and SpaceX touted in a statement that “Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do.” The statement went on to boast that “Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission. No other rocket currently flying has this ability.” But the engine failure caused the Falcon to deposit a secondary payload—a small satellite—in an unstable orbit, lower than had been planned, and the satellite quickly fell back toward Earth and burned up in the atmosphere.

The second resupply trip, which began March 1 with a clean liftoff of a Falcon 9, quickly took a turn for the worse when three of the four thruster pods on the Dragon cargo capsule failed to fire up. For a time, it looked as if the Dragon might not be able to reach its intended orbit to rendezvous with the station. By the time the problem had been corrected, six hours into flight, NASA and SpaceX had postponed by a day the Dragon’s planned arrival at the ISS. Eventually the Dragon docked successfully on March 3 ...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/03/06/commercial-spaceflight-industry-drifts-back-to-earth/
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Commercial Spaceflight Industry Drifts Back to Earth (Original Post) struggle4progress Mar 2013 OP
to assert that Elon Musk doesn't understand the risks and difficulties of spaceflight, is ridiculous Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #1
Not what they're asserting jeff47 Mar 2013 #2
True. The Saturn V could still reach orbit with an engine failure, I think. Apollo 12, maybe? Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #3

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
1. to assert that Elon Musk doesn't understand the risks and difficulties of spaceflight, is ridiculous
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 07:28 PM
Mar 2013

his track record is admirable, and he's never asserted there were never going to be problems.

Nearly overlooked in that 1st Falcon 9 incident, with the engine shut down, is the fact that the rocket still reached orbit after the engine shutdown. Still an impressive accomplishment and a situation that traditionally would have ended the entire mission for NASA or the USAF, etc. etc.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
2. Not what they're asserting
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:02 PM
Mar 2013

They're talking about politicians and the general public who think any old private company can handle these kinds of operations. That ISS should be stocked by Wal-Mart.

Still an impressive accomplishment and a situation that traditionally would have ended the entire mission for NASA or the USAF, etc. etc.

You know, there was this rocket called a "Saturn V"......

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
3. True. The Saturn V could still reach orbit with an engine failure, I think. Apollo 12, maybe?
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:11 PM
Mar 2013


Look; no one is a bigger booster (excuse the pun) of Space Exploration than yours truly; and I don't see it as manned v. unmanned or private v. government. Those are "fights" which have been foisted upon the space establishment by budgetary short-sightedness, IMHO.

I was pretty unhappy with the "privatization" move at first, but I've actually come to believe that it's a good move on the part of NASA to allow the meat and potatoes job of LEO to be taken over by private companies; IF it really frees them up to do what they're supposed to do, i.e. explore.

I also don't think that SpaceX is "any old company". Their track record, while not perfect, is pretty impressive given the time span. And I think that the private guys are performing multiple duty right now, inspiring the public and spurring NASA to get off its butt.
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Commercial Spaceflight In...