Video of SpaceX Falcon 9 Dragon Capsule Launch for NASA
A non-public organization has released a spacecraft in a daring demonstration check for NASA. The Space Exploration Systems rocket blasted off from Cape Canaveral on Wednesday morning. The Falcon 9 is carrying a capsule named Dragon. The organization, known as SpaceX, hopes to location the capsule in orbit and then carry it back to Earth a few hrs afterwards. It will be the initial time a industrial organization tries to recover a spacecraft re-entering from orbit. The approach is for Dragon to circle the world 2 times, then parachute into the Pacific Ocean, five hundred miles off the Mexican coast. NASA is choosing firms like SpaceX to haul materials to the Global Room Station following up coming year’s shuttle retirement. Taxi trips for astronauts may adhere to.
Video clip Rating: four / five
@burn435353 It’s being heavily subsidized by NASA. By that I mean that much of the development for Dragon and Falcon 9 is paid for already. The rest comes from contracts with other companies for launching satellites. I don’t know if they’re profiting yet, since I don’t think they;ve done anything but test flights. Once they start launching cargo to ISS, they’ll be making big bucks.
★★Whitehouse.gov has a UFO Disclosure petition★★
posted on the Whitehouse website
whitehouse dot gov/gKC
Non u.s. citizens are allowed
link on my profile
can someone tell me how spacex is a profitable venture, i can see the possibility of profitability in the future through helium 3 mining on the moon, but currently i can only assume that its being subsidized by NASA, or NASA is paying spacex for launches, if this is so, what is the cost benefit of having a private space exploration company? why isnt nasa just doing this shit, or better yet, why not combine funding and have an international space program
@ohkki123 The epic smoke of the Shuttle was also the epic fail of the Shuttle. Its cause by Solid rocket boosters SRB’s. Oversized Estes model rocket engines and unsophisticated. Solid fuel explodes about 2% of the time because of air bubbles in production. One of the reasons Werner Von Braun left NASA was that he was against using solid fuel with manned rockets. SRB’s cannot be turned off once started. After the Challenger accident, it turned out that Werner Von Braun was right.
@youngflyss one rocket launch is harmless compared to a single 747.
While rockets burn more fuel per second, they do so at far higher temperatures (more clean combustion) and pass the thin ozone layer in a few seconds, instead of flying close to it for hours.
@Apollo580 i pretty sure cars do less damamge than burning a hole into the atmosphere while LEAVING THE PLANET our cars are wayyy away from literally burning a hole…either way im not knocking it because science requires sacrifice….one of those sacrifices will be the planet…we kinda have to destroy this one to colonize a new one…
@youngflyss If you really wish to tackle global warming, please turn your attention towards automobiles. Not rockets.
thumbs up if you miss the epic smoke and noise of the space shuttle.
You know, one day, when space travel becomes everyday stuff, NASA should launch a shuttle as some sort of memorial event.
yippee ki yay, Mr. Falcon!
anybody say Global arming?
they just burned a hole in the atmosphere…lol
it was sick tho…i wish i coulda burned that hole in gods earth…lmao!!
@GWhite1001 No, because NASA has a contract with SpaceX. Most likely, this is the future of the American Space Program.
@GWhite1001
Nope, just russians, they’re angry cause they will lose all our business from using the soyuz. lol.
@MrAirinys
horse shit!
@GWhite1001
Ha! I wouldn’t bet against that theory! I think we have all had enough of NASA bumbling, over priced tin, and mismanagement of resources. Space X is the future.
just imagine being there and not knowing that this was going to be launched, you would be like, shit are we going to war
nominal
just
phenomenal
takes half the time of a space shuttle.
@samirls lol its alwas about money dude look at the budget of nasa for the apollo program something like 5 billion dollars a year and that was in 1960′s, 70s today that same budget would equal 11 billion a year we did land on the moon u have to understand it was a whole program with many missions not just the famous apollo 11 which was a “show boat” mission to say we landed on the moon the ones before and the ones that followed actually were for science.
I wish the man had gone to the moon. It is not possible that 40 years have benn passed and technology delayed.
haha, step 1 ISS, step 2 moon, step 3, mars, step 4, build on both of the planets
I want spacex…
@MrToubrouk SpaceX doesn’t compete with NASA. In fact NASA helps SpaceX and will be their main customer.
And this is SpaceX kicking NASA in the balls.
Next step? Falcon Heavy and a return to the moon.
Awesome.
@donzi1011 That would be because they havent launched the second one. They dont have a infinite supply of money and are very careful. Yes the first one crashed so? The last falcon 9 performed perfectly. So really….