SpaceX slated to transport cargo and crew on Falcon 9

If that homebrew rocket you've been building in your backyard isn't working out, maybe SpaceX will have some room for you on one of its many upcoming Falcon 9 missions. Now that the F1 has successfully achieved orbit, the F9 is slated for launch in Q1 2009. As you may recall, the aptly named Falcon 9 has nine engines rather than one, as with the F1. These redundancies were inspired by the Apollo's Saturn V and Saturn I rockets, noted for their flawless flight records despite engine failures. If all goes well, the launch will be followed by three more, including one with a crew and an F9 "Heavy" -- handy if you've got 25,300 lbs of marbles or whatever to haul up to the International Space Station. If you plan on hitching a ride, get your job applications in now -- only valued employees are scheduled to be passengers at this time. Got a more exotic destination in mind? Next up Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, has his sights set on building a "Mars lander of some kind."

[Via Wired]

[BigD145 @ Oct 1st 2008 11:15PM]

Apollo also had its share of fatalities. Do employees get hazard pay?

[Blackstar @ Oct 1st 2008 11:58PM]

"Uh, guys...Hello? Where's the door? The windows are too small, I can't get out... guys... guys!"

"The first half of the largest interstellar Tylenol Gelcap® is now ready for assembly."

"This new spacecraft internally dubbed the "God Suppository" will penetrate the heavens soon...."

"The F1 has successfully achieved orbit, the F9 is slated for launch in Q1 2009. Everyone is praying no one accidentally presses 'ALT' during the F4 mission."

[petey @ Oct 2nd 2008 2:23PM]

in lieu of paychecks they earn credits on paypal, and bid for food and rent on ebay.

[Striker @ Oct 1st 2008 11:24PM]

You know, if I were the head of SpaceX, I wouldn't send valued employees up on it, due to what happened with the Falcon 1 launches, and they would have to get them back down, that could be a problem.

[a ham sandwich @ Oct 2nd 2008 12:03AM]

so, what? they should send expendable people up?!

no, but seriously, that's the risk and cost of progress, my friend. its an unfortunate inevitability of space exploration.

[Striker @ Oct 2nd 2008 12:18AM]

I wouldn't send anyone up until they can prove that the system is 100% reliable for when they are actually sending people up. I still don't know how they plan to get them down, I hope they haven't forgotten about that little detail...

[Danger @ Oct 2nd 2008 12:49AM]

Basic engineering design, bro. Nothing is 100% safe.. The best they can do is to design it with high factors of safety and test the jeheebus out of it to minimize risk. We'll nickname it the 'Falcon 9 Lives' and cross our fingers, eh?

[a ham sandwich @ Oct 2nd 2008 12:52AM]

technology is never 100% reliable. especially space exploration. challenger? columbia? apollo 1? even apollo 13. i'm sure they've put much thought into the return trip. what it all comes down to though, is on takeoff, they're 5 or however many guys sitting on top of a gigantic bomb, and on re-entry, they're flying into a wall of fire. there's only so much you can prepare for, and then the rest is out of your hands. columbia was brought down by a piece of foam insulation. foam! its rather humbling, really.

[Casey @ Oct 2nd 2008 1:29AM]

I guess you don't fly, drive a car, ride a motorcycle, subway, train or bus since none of those modes of transportation are 100% reliable either.

[Flashpoint @ Oct 1st 2008 11:26PM]

What i'll never understand is how Americans (some of em) can call NASA "wasteful spending"

Does anyone realize that keeping satellites in orbit, maintaining a presense in space and continuously innovating in science/technology is what keeps America on top...what keeps our national security efficient?

We need a new shuttle and we need it pronto.

[z0phi3l @ Oct 2nd 2008 12:38AM]

SpaceX will beat them to Mars at the rate NASA moves and will probly blow up more equipment than Spacex in the process.


NASA is too slow and bureaucratic to get anything done in the time frames that they need to be done.

Speaking of the Shuttle, you realize there won't be a replacement for it right? NASA decided that conventionally styled rockets were the way to go instead, so once the Shuttles are retired, that will be it for the idea.

[thatrotierkid @ Oct 2nd 2008 12:46AM]

Omg I agreed with everything you just said. Something isnt right here... crab people must have taken over Flashpoint's body!

[Danger @ Oct 2nd 2008 12:51AM]

I, for one, bow to our new crab king overlords. They seem pretty rational. If they can fix Flashpoint, they can fix anything!

[fischju @ Oct 1st 2008 11:54PM]

I wonder what kind of funeral the first people launched into (near) space will get when it blows up.

[Greg Mcp @ Oct 1st 2008 11:55PM]

I'm waiting for these guys to drop a probe onto the moon.

I know their next step is to make some money out of their work by launching commercial satellites, but I hope they still go on to do cooler things.

[Kevin @ Oct 2nd 2008 1:18AM]

Oh, I get it - rather than build a rocket to go into space they built a capsule that bolts onto the space shuttle roof rack - brilliant!

[bstear @ Oct 2nd 2008 9:47AM]

That looks like half a capsule, so is this for the Falcon 4.5 rocket?

[bstear @ Oct 2nd 2008 2:34PM]

May I have 10000 marbles, please?

[Ron Smith @ Oct 2nd 2008 8:58PM]

For right now crew launch is not yet implemented. Falcon 9 and Dragon are being built with some funding from NASA for cargo flights to the International Space Station under a program called COTS. Manned capacity is called COTS-D, and is of yet unfunded.

Also the use of 9 engines INCREASES risk not decreases. Look up the N-1 rocket if you don't believe me.

Also the image is a mock-up of the Falcon 9 shroud, not the Dragon Capsule. The shroud covers a satellite until the rocket reaches a certain altitude and is then jettisoned.