While watching the pre-launch, and listening to NASA comment on the rocket and its sub-systems, I am left wondering how it feels to be NASA looking at something which previously only they and the DoD could muster.
Will be a strange new world when one can put 'what ever they want' into orbit if they have the cash. Yes, I know that up to now that has been handled by 'the brotherhood' (this is what I heard a Lockheed engineer call the set of public and private actors that were the components of the US space program).
I'm really excited to someone putting up the ULA long duration vehicle [1] (an internal combustion engine in space, how cool is that?) and depots with fuel for things to move around. That will be a new day indeed.
I remember when all the major networks covered a space launch. The count down, the NASA checklists, Walter Cronkite talking to some ex-astronaut type person explaining what was going on. This feels like that (except for the fact that not a lot of coverage other than NASA TV and a web cast). I appreciate that it will be on earlier on the west coast, waiting until nearly 3AM was killing me :-).
I can understand indifference of news outlets. After all, unmanned launches have become fairly routine. Even cargo missions to ISS have become routine. The 'what' isn't the exciting part of SpaceX, the 'who' excites us. Most people probably don't get that.
What I can't understand is the disparraging nature of a lot of the coverage. Both Slate and the Wall Street Journal had really snarky commentary this morning about the delayed launch. There were many people poking fun at them on Twitter.
Meanwhile, as someone who actually follows this stuff, I was amazed by their ability to shut down the rocket after ignition without damage. I'm also impressed by the fact they're able to refire the engine almost immediately. You can't do that with every rocket ever made. Not only is the Merlin engine cheaper, it's better (than some). That's something to be proud of.
And even if the journalist doesn't know enough about rockets to be impressed that a failure didn't lead to the thing blowing up on the launch pad, they're acting as if government launches don't get delayed repeatedly. The Space Shuttle would seemingly only actually liftoff about 50% of the time they said it would. It's hardly a major set back that they pushed it back 48 hours. Why does it seem like people want this to fail?
I don't think the Voyager probe uses IP datagrams, and as the furthest manmade object from Earth, it's not even outside the heliosphere. Perhaps I'm missing something?
Watching this from Scotland live over the Internet. Feeling quite excited at the prospect of private enterprise supplying the International space station and hopefully kick starting something.
Will be a strange new world when one can put 'what ever they want' into orbit if they have the cash. Yes, I know that up to now that has been handled by 'the brotherhood' (this is what I heard a Lockheed engineer call the set of public and private actors that were the components of the US space program).
I'm really excited to someone putting up the ULA long duration vehicle [1] (an internal combustion engine in space, how cool is that?) and depots with fuel for things to move around. That will be a new day indeed.
[1] http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/Integrated%2...