BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Rocket aims for low-cost flights — What does this portend for the future? More junk in space, that’s what.
A new unmanned rocket hopes to shake up the launcher industry on Friday when it makes its maiden voyage.
With the relatively low price of $6.7m per flight, the Falcon 1 will set a new worldwide low for satellite launch costs, it makers claim.
The vehicle, developed by the Space Exploration Technologies Corp, will take off from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean.
I prefer ‘Cheap-ass Rocket aims for New York porn star’.
And what you save in launch costs will be eaten-up by increased insurance costs. 🙂
Hey, at least there is a picture of a rocket, instead of a Rockett. And I can foresee the emergence of a new industry: Low Earth Orbital Salvage. As commercial space operations become both more sophisticated and cheaper opportunities by the space ship load will present themselves.
cheap ass rocket, I think that was a fuel station on a show I used to watch. might have been futurama….
looks like a cheap ICBM to me
This is actually a pretty cool operation. The company was founded and is entirely financed by Elon Musk, one of the cofounders of paypal.
Here is an article in Discover with more details:
http://discover.com/issues/sep-05/cover/
Rocket science just ain’t what it used to be.
The rocket failed and crashed into the ocean at T+41 seconds.
Story here
“The launch video did not show any signs of the liquid oxygen blanket unzipping and being yanked free from the rocket by ground tethers as planned. As the vehicle climbed higher, a white blanket … could be seen flapping wildly in the onboard video. Large pieces appeared to rip away at T+plus 20 seconds due to the rocket’s increasing speed.”
Now that the Shuttles must be retired, I wonder which way NASA is going to go? Knowing the government, they will probably go bigger, more expensive and more complex.
But this seems like absolutely the wrong direction. This rocket is the right direction.
As a lay person I think they need TWO systems.:
1) A SUPER-SAFE way to get people into space and back again. It can be relatively expensive, per KG lifted, but all the engineering should be focussed on safety safety safety.
2) A SUPER-CHEAP way to get payloads into space. It’s OK if a few blow-up or crash now and again, as long as they are cheap and easy.
Then, we sent up people on the expensive system and payloads on the cheap system.
This “one system fits all” doesn’t make sense anymore. Why send up payloads on the same system as people? The two can rendezvous in space, if need be.