SpaceX Successfully Completes First Mission to Geostationary Transfer Orbit(spacex.com)
spacex.com
SpaceX Successfully Completes First Mission to Geostationary Transfer Orbit
http://www.spacex.com/press/2013/12/03/spacex-successfully-completes-first-mission-geostationary-transfer-orbit
13 comments
* I had my laptop out and had all the kids looking over my shoulder watching the two launch attempts.*
Yep, same here!
Thank goodness for Kerbal Space Program. It's a marvelous backup.
Yep, same here!
Thank goodness for Kerbal Space Program. It's a marvelous backup.
That picture works really well as a desktop wallpaper (hi-res, dark, not too much contrast)
Thanks so much for posting that link. I saw the streak picture from another commenter, and wondered if there was a high-res version.
It's so beautiful that I would have it on my wall, but I doubt it would print out nearly as nicely as it appears on-screen.
It's so beautiful that I would have it on my wall, but I doubt it would print out nearly as nicely as it appears on-screen.
I was there on the Monday before Thanksgiving and was really disappointed that it didn't happen then.
It's easy to miss how important this launch is. SpaceX builds rockets but lots of organizations around the world have built and continue to build rockets that do everything that this rocket did, and sometimes more. But in some ways that's also why this launch is impressive.
SpaceX is a private company that has developed its launch vehicles outside of a conventional government procurement program, on their own terms. The typical way that anything gets done in the space launch business is that a government organization develops plans and dedicates a budget and then contracts with companies for procurement. In the end it's still a private company developing a launch vehicle whether it's Lockheed-Martin or SpaceX so again this may seem very similar on the surface. But the differences in character have a huge number of effects. Government directed development is bureaucratic, it's expensive, it's risk averse, and it's often inflicted with institutional superstitions and fads. Even worse it tends to rely on a "big design up front" or "waterfall" development model. Commercial development tends to be extremely pragmatic and iterative, leading to improved results.
Look at the Atlas V and Delta IV for example. Both have been in service for about a decade, after being developed through a government procurement program, and both have not seen significant changes in their design during their operational period. Compare that to the story at SpaceX who have developed 5 different rocket engines and 5 different launchers in the decade or so they've been operating. The SES-8 launch represents only the second launch of a new iteration of the Falcon 9 rocket, the v1.1, which uses new engines, a new thrust support structure, stretched fuel tanks, a new ignition system, and is designed to be capable of re-use of the first stage with the addition of landing legs.
Let's imagine a hypothetical parallel universe SpaceX. They could have put a Falcon Heavy into production based on the Falcon 9 v1 core, or they could have made less ambitious changes to the Falcon 9 v1.1 while retaining the same performance levels. With such a lineup they would still have a very bright financial future ahead of them. Their low manufacturing and operational costs enable them to offer similar launch services to the competition at much lower prices. With the offerings I've described SpaceX could easily become a multi-billion dollar company with very healthy profit margins. But SpaceX has grander ambitions than just making money, they want to open up the spaceflight market and they want to kickstart manned exploration of Mars.
This mission is a bit of a demonstration that their ambition has not gone too far, that they are actually capable of delivering on their promises and, crucially, that they can deliver satellite payloads to orbit just as well as anyone.
What does that mean? In the simplest sense it means that SpaceX's bank account is going to get pretty fat over the next few years. A corporation getting wealthy isn't a big deal right? Except in this case that profit isn't just going to be spent on yachts and mansions and private jets, much of it will be re-invested in the company in order to further the company's (and its founder's) vision.
At most rocket companies making rockets is an excuse to make money. At SpaceX making money is an excuse to make more rockets. They're going to develop and prove reusability of the Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage "live" as it were using operational missions. They've already used operational cargo delivery missions to flight-proof a substantial portion of the manned capsule hardware they've been working on. Over the next few years they are going to bring into service first stage reusability, the Falcon Heavy (and then later bring reusability into that platform as well), and the manned Dragon. Meanwhile they're developing LOX/Methane fueled engines for their next generation launchers which should be highly reusable (since Methane burns so cleanly) and be targeted at Manned Mars missions. Most space launch companies are content with sitting at comfortable plateaus and waiting for government encouragement, and funding, to step up to the next plateau, but SpaceX is a company that has constant innovation in its blood.
This mission validates the work they've done and their development style while also providing a huge signal to the industry that SpaceX is a reliable carrier. Which will help to funnel a lot more business their way and give them more excuses to build and develop more rockets, culminating in launch costs a fraction of what is possible today and catalyzing manned exploration of the Solar System.
SpaceX is a private company that has developed its launch vehicles outside of a conventional government procurement program, on their own terms. The typical way that anything gets done in the space launch business is that a government organization develops plans and dedicates a budget and then contracts with companies for procurement. In the end it's still a private company developing a launch vehicle whether it's Lockheed-Martin or SpaceX so again this may seem very similar on the surface. But the differences in character have a huge number of effects. Government directed development is bureaucratic, it's expensive, it's risk averse, and it's often inflicted with institutional superstitions and fads. Even worse it tends to rely on a "big design up front" or "waterfall" development model. Commercial development tends to be extremely pragmatic and iterative, leading to improved results.
Look at the Atlas V and Delta IV for example. Both have been in service for about a decade, after being developed through a government procurement program, and both have not seen significant changes in their design during their operational period. Compare that to the story at SpaceX who have developed 5 different rocket engines and 5 different launchers in the decade or so they've been operating. The SES-8 launch represents only the second launch of a new iteration of the Falcon 9 rocket, the v1.1, which uses new engines, a new thrust support structure, stretched fuel tanks, a new ignition system, and is designed to be capable of re-use of the first stage with the addition of landing legs.
Let's imagine a hypothetical parallel universe SpaceX. They could have put a Falcon Heavy into production based on the Falcon 9 v1 core, or they could have made less ambitious changes to the Falcon 9 v1.1 while retaining the same performance levels. With such a lineup they would still have a very bright financial future ahead of them. Their low manufacturing and operational costs enable them to offer similar launch services to the competition at much lower prices. With the offerings I've described SpaceX could easily become a multi-billion dollar company with very healthy profit margins. But SpaceX has grander ambitions than just making money, they want to open up the spaceflight market and they want to kickstart manned exploration of Mars.
This mission is a bit of a demonstration that their ambition has not gone too far, that they are actually capable of delivering on their promises and, crucially, that they can deliver satellite payloads to orbit just as well as anyone.
What does that mean? In the simplest sense it means that SpaceX's bank account is going to get pretty fat over the next few years. A corporation getting wealthy isn't a big deal right? Except in this case that profit isn't just going to be spent on yachts and mansions and private jets, much of it will be re-invested in the company in order to further the company's (and its founder's) vision.
At most rocket companies making rockets is an excuse to make money. At SpaceX making money is an excuse to make more rockets. They're going to develop and prove reusability of the Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage "live" as it were using operational missions. They've already used operational cargo delivery missions to flight-proof a substantial portion of the manned capsule hardware they've been working on. Over the next few years they are going to bring into service first stage reusability, the Falcon Heavy (and then later bring reusability into that platform as well), and the manned Dragon. Meanwhile they're developing LOX/Methane fueled engines for their next generation launchers which should be highly reusable (since Methane burns so cleanly) and be targeted at Manned Mars missions. Most space launch companies are content with sitting at comfortable plateaus and waiting for government encouragement, and funding, to step up to the next plateau, but SpaceX is a company that has constant innovation in its blood.
This mission validates the work they've done and their development style while also providing a huge signal to the industry that SpaceX is a reliable carrier. Which will help to funnel a lot more business their way and give them more excuses to build and develop more rockets, culminating in launch costs a fraction of what is possible today and catalyzing manned exploration of the Solar System.
As 3rd world nations develop economically, SpaceX should be able to make a ton of money selling a ready-made "space program in a box" to US-friendly nations that want to demonstrate their new affluence. There is a big question if the US state department will let them, however.
Just makes me sad that they're not publicly traded, because I would have placed a big bet (investment) on the company last week. Then again, perhaps it's for the best so that Lockheed, Boeing and ULA friends don't just buy them and shut them down. I hope our 21st century Howard Hughes gets rich off this and starts even more disruptive companies with the spoils.
If they were publicly traded, they'd probably get drawn into the Wall Street trend of short-term profit above all else. Why risk whether you can sell the long-term vision of cheap travel to and colonization of Mars to institutional investors and speculators? Odds are it'll never happen at SpaceX unless company ownership is limited to people who share the long-term vision, which is kind of the opposite of being publicly traded.
A couple fires and the stock drops 45% in three weeks like TSLA? I think they are not interested in that. It would be too volatile.
>Just makes me sad that they're not publicly traded
I used to think that too, but then I read about Elon's opinion on that and changed my mind. Being privately owned allows them to take huge risks and whether the inevitable catastrophic failure. You can't really do that when you have to be accountable to millions of shareholders and market pressures.
I used to think that too, but then I read about Elon's opinion on that and changed my mind. Being privately owned allows them to take huge risks and whether the inevitable catastrophic failure. You can't really do that when you have to be accountable to millions of shareholders and market pressures.
Musk has said that SpaceX won't consider going public at least until the MCT is flying regularly.
If SpaceX went public, became a wildly successful earth-orbit rocket company and made Musk very rich, I believe he would consider that a failure.
If SpaceX went public, became a wildly successful earth-orbit rocket company and made Musk very rich, I believe he would consider that a failure.
It's good SpaceX is not traded, not at this point. Think about time the ceo will have to spend talking to the money heads. shuddering...
It was quite amazing to watch the launch, it was right at sundown so the colors left by the exhaust looked different. Here's a pic: http://twitter.com/AhmedRezaT/status/408004729201897472/phot...
I LOVE the job openings on SpaceX careers page, they are literally looking for rocket scientists :-)
http://www.spacex.com/careers/list
http://www.spacex.com/careers/list
It's not exactly brain surgery though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I
Let's give it up for the payload too! Orbital Sciences' SES8!
Very cool, anyone know if there were any cubesats on this mission? I have a fantasy about putting a cubesat in geosync orbit that I could ping from a converted Dish or DirectTV antenna.
I'm glad spacex.com website looks more modern. Congrats by the way. :)
I dont like spaceXs propoganda department. I believe this is a difference between a public and a private space program. SpaceX seem to cover up any hiccups or issues they have and always present this saccharine sweet 'flawless' report of their missions. Thats dishonest and just not scientific imo.
A few entries from Elon Musk's Twitter feed, from the first launch attempt a couple days ago:
> Launch aborted by autosequence due to slower than expected thrust ramp. Seems ok on closer inspection. Cycling countdown.
> Increasing helium spin start pressure. Probably <50% chance of passing all aborts, but worth a try. Countdown resuming ...
> We called manual abort. Better to be paranoid and wrong. Bringing rocket down to borescope engines ...
> All known rocket anomalies resolved. Will spend another day rechecking to be sure. Launch attempt tmrw eve w Wed as backup.
Press releases are press releases, and a press release will always spin things as favorably as possible. If you look at the other sources, though, they seem awfully forthright.
> Launch aborted by autosequence due to slower than expected thrust ramp. Seems ok on closer inspection. Cycling countdown.
> Increasing helium spin start pressure. Probably <50% chance of passing all aborts, but worth a try. Countdown resuming ...
> We called manual abort. Better to be paranoid and wrong. Bringing rocket down to borescope engines ...
> All known rocket anomalies resolved. Will spend another day rechecking to be sure. Launch attempt tmrw eve w Wed as backup.
Press releases are press releases, and a press release will always spin things as favorably as possible. If you look at the other sources, though, they seem awfully forthright.
They seem to be incredibly open to me. They have been very transparent about pretty much every hiccup and misstep they've had in any flight. I think you are comparing them to an ideal which has never existed in reality.
IIRC they weren't exactly open about losing a satellite in a ISS resupply mission[1].
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload
They only "lost" the sattelite because NASA rejected their attempts at raising its orbit.
I remember them being forthright about it. They also said, and I can believe it, that the 4 days the satellite spent in orbit were very useful to the customer. It was a prototype, and there's a big difference between putting on a shaker table, baking and freezing it, putting it in a vacuum chamber ... and actually putting it in space.
So Orbcomm was able to figure out a lot of stuff and I'm sure the price was very nice.
So Orbcomm was able to figure out a lot of stuff and I'm sure the price was very nice.
They cut the live feed when an issue came up on one of their dragon capsule launches.
There is a little bit of hyperbole involved when you have an issue with them cutting the live feed on one of their missions and then claiming:
"SpaceX seem to cover up any hiccups or issues they have and always present this saccharine sweet 'flawless' report of their missions. "
You may want to dial it back a few notches - trust me, I tend to reach for the hyperbole a little too quickly myself.
(Note - I read subscribe to Elon Musk's twitter feed, and he's a lot more balanced on SpaceX than he is on Tesla)
"SpaceX seem to cover up any hiccups or issues they have and always present this saccharine sweet 'flawless' report of their missions. "
You may want to dial it back a few notches - trust me, I tend to reach for the hyperbole a little too quickly myself.
(Note - I read subscribe to Elon Musk's twitter feed, and he's a lot more balanced on SpaceX than he is on Tesla)
yeah, noted :)
On the other hand, they did eventually post video of their two most spectacular crashes: The first Falcon 1 launch where the rocket spiraled out of control, and the third Falcon 1 launch where the first stage crashed into the second stage, making the second-stage engine ignite inside the first stage fairing.
You would not see a private spaceflight company set against transparency do this. Especially the latter example, seeing as it could be interpreted as a stupid mistake.
You would not see a private spaceflight company set against transparency do this. Especially the latter example, seeing as it could be interpreted as a stupid mistake.
You don't think NASA wouldn't have cut the feed on the Challenger disaster if they could have?
They did cut the feed. The actual video feed kept going until range control fired the FTS to destroy the SRB's that kept flying along after the shuttle was blown apart. You didn't get to see that back in the 80's. That footage had only recently been released.
Perhaps, but there were people on Challenger. Not that it would look any different on cameras...
And of course, NASA never whitewashes anything? Nor the NRO and the DOD?
Two cool pictures from the flight:
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/styles/media_galler...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BamdsH0IIAA-W_b.jpg:large
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/styles/media_galler...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BamdsH0IIAA-W_b.jpg:large
I love the views they broadcast of the engine bell. Takes on an eerie, transparent luminescence several minutes into the fight. Thanks for sharing.
Can anyone explain why they placed the satellite in 295x80 000 km orbit? Is it especially hard to place satellites directly into geostationary orbit, or something else?
So, orbits are weird. As in, "burning your engines in space almost never does what you'd intuitively expect based on a lifetime on Earth with things like cars and planes" weird.
In order to get geostationary, you need to get to a circular orbit at an altitude of 35,786km above Earth's surface. Trying to do that all in one burn is, I guess, theoretically possible but is going to waste an absurd amount of fuel.
The reason for this is that changing altitude in orbit = changing your speed. Specifically, you have two points you care about: your apogee (highest altitude) and your perigee (lowest altitude). To raise your apogee in the most efficient manner, you accelerate prograde (in the direction of your orbit), at perigee. To raise perigee in the most efficient manner, you accelerate prograde at apogee. Or, more simply: what you do at a certain point in your orbit will end up affecting what happens at the point in your orbit that's precisely opposite the point where you did something.
So the most efficient way to get up there is to use a transfer orbit. First you get into a lower, "parking" orbit (which doesn't take as much fuel as going all the way up in one go). Then at perigee you burn to raise your apogee out to the altitude you want. Then you cruise to apogee, and burn again to raise your perigee, resulting in a circular orbit.
Here's a detailed article on that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
Except it never goes quite that simply in the real world, so you actually end up doing more than two engine burns, but under ideal theoretical circumstances, you'd do it in two.
In order to get geostationary, you need to get to a circular orbit at an altitude of 35,786km above Earth's surface. Trying to do that all in one burn is, I guess, theoretically possible but is going to waste an absurd amount of fuel.
The reason for this is that changing altitude in orbit = changing your speed. Specifically, you have two points you care about: your apogee (highest altitude) and your perigee (lowest altitude). To raise your apogee in the most efficient manner, you accelerate prograde (in the direction of your orbit), at perigee. To raise perigee in the most efficient manner, you accelerate prograde at apogee. Or, more simply: what you do at a certain point in your orbit will end up affecting what happens at the point in your orbit that's precisely opposite the point where you did something.
So the most efficient way to get up there is to use a transfer orbit. First you get into a lower, "parking" orbit (which doesn't take as much fuel as going all the way up in one go). Then at perigee you burn to raise your apogee out to the altitude you want. Then you cruise to apogee, and burn again to raise your perigee, resulting in a circular orbit.
Here's a detailed article on that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
Except it never goes quite that simply in the real world, so you actually end up doing more than two engine burns, but under ideal theoretical circumstances, you'd do it in two.
This is made even more complicated by the fact that SpaceX isn't launching from the equator, which means the satellite will need to change its orbital inclination. Inclination changes are less expensive the 'higher' up you are, so SES8 is in an orbit with an apogee almost twice as high as its eventual orbit. This allows it to use less fuel to correct the inclination.
I haven't read up on the burn plans, but it's possible that the mission is technically using a bi-elliptic transfer[1], rather than a straight hohmann transfer (warning: I learned my orbital mechanics from the Kerbal Space Academy).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-elliptic_transfer
I haven't read up on the burn plans, but it's possible that the mission is technically using a bi-elliptic transfer[1], rather than a straight hohmann transfer (warning: I learned my orbital mechanics from the Kerbal Space Academy).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-elliptic_transfer
Bi-elliptic transfer sounds like a plausible explanation but my math gives it a bigger delta-v requirement than a straightforward Hohmann transfer.
Bi-elliptic transfer: (2.713240 + 0.908982 + 0.485255) = 4.107477 km/s Hohmann transfer: (2.335977 + 1.431307) = 3.7672853 km/s
This alone does not explain why they did so. But this is all assuming that the trajectory is planar. If there was a plane change coupled with the second burn at high apogee, it could explain it.
Bi-elliptic transfer: (2.713240 + 0.908982 + 0.485255) = 4.107477 km/s Hohmann transfer: (2.335977 + 1.431307) = 3.7672853 km/s
This alone does not explain why they did so. But this is all assuming that the trajectory is planar. If there was a plane change coupled with the second burn at high apogee, it could explain it.
If there is a plane change involved (as apparently there is), then getting further out before executing the plane change involves less delta-v; performing a plane-change maneuver at apogee is by far the most efficient way.
Is this the same way that the Indian mars mission reached its "transfer altitude"?
They did a few things differently. Because their thrust was relatively limited, they made several short burns at perigee to raise their apogee in successive stages. Essentially, it was more efficient to fire their engine several times very close to perigee in 5-10 minute bursts, than make one long 30 minute burn.
Secondly, there was never any stage where they circularized their orbit, as one would do with a Hohmann. Rather, they kept burning at perigee until they escaped earth. Picture a an ellipse growing more and more eccentric until it becomes open at one end.
Also note that they never burned at apogee. The point wasn't to raise apogee so they could escape at apogee, but to increase velocity at perigee until they could reach escape velocity with a 20 minute burn on their last orbit.
http://www.isro.org/mars/mission-profile.aspx
Secondly, there was never any stage where they circularized their orbit, as one would do with a Hohmann. Rather, they kept burning at perigee until they escaped earth. Picture a an ellipse growing more and more eccentric until it becomes open at one end.
Also note that they never burned at apogee. The point wasn't to raise apogee so they could escape at apogee, but to increase velocity at perigee until they could reach escape velocity with a 20 minute burn on their last orbit.
http://www.isro.org/mars/mission-profile.aspx
The reason they temporarily raise their apogee so high is that it reduces the delta-v cost of changing inclination. The cost of changing inclination is directly proportional to your speed at the moment when you do the inclination change. When you are in a highly eccentric orbit, your speed at apoapsis is much lower than your speed in a circular orbit.
Also, inclination burns can be combined with raising periapsis, which allows you to save some fuel thanks to the way they are at a 90 degree angle.
Another advantage is that it provides an easy and cheap way to deliver the spacecraft into the correct position in the stationary orbit, by controlling the orbital period of the eccentric orbit so that the periapsis will be where you want it to be (possibly after several orbits).
Because of this, the best possible way to launch from far away from the equator to a geostationary orbit is to launch to a highly eccentric orbit, at apoapsis when you intersect the equator simultaneously raise your periapsis to geostationary and fix your inclination, and then circularize at periapsis.
If this is interesting, and you don't already own kerbal space program, head over to the steam store right now.
Also, inclination burns can be combined with raising periapsis, which allows you to save some fuel thanks to the way they are at a 90 degree angle.
Another advantage is that it provides an easy and cheap way to deliver the spacecraft into the correct position in the stationary orbit, by controlling the orbital period of the eccentric orbit so that the periapsis will be where you want it to be (possibly after several orbits).
Because of this, the best possible way to launch from far away from the equator to a geostationary orbit is to launch to a highly eccentric orbit, at apoapsis when you intersect the equator simultaneously raise your periapsis to geostationary and fix your inclination, and then circularize at periapsis.
If this is interesting, and you don't already own kerbal space program, head over to the steam store right now.
> If this is interesting, and you don't already own kerbal space program, head over to the steam store right now.
And if you like Kerbal Space Program, but you find it isn't quite sadistic enough, go download Orbiter.
And if you like Kerbal Space Program, but you find it isn't quite sadistic enough, go download Orbiter.
Still haven't ever managed a successful shuttle landing...
It takes less energy to change your orbital inclination (think "angle") from the orbit they are putting it in than from geosynchronous. Once it reaches the right inclination, they will put into the final orbit having used less fuel than they would have if they had launched it directly.
Yeah, going straight to GEO isn't very efficient. Instead SpaceX (and most other commercial operations) insert the satellite into GTO and then the satellite's operators take over and do the final burn into GEO.
SpaceX is the company that really makes Elon Musk a role model for me. I find everything they do inspirational. I must have watched that video of their employees outside mission control watching the falcon 9 launch a dozen times [1]. You should see the lines of students at my university's career fair when they come, you almost can't even see the recruiters behind the sea of undergrads swarming their booth.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XtD-5L7cLk
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XtD-5L7cLk
Agreed! I love watching the videos because I live in Hawthorne, which is a very modest suburb of Los Angeles (where homes in the safer neighborhoods are only $700k). So when they say things like "Hawthorne Control," it makes me proud of this town and hope for a little bit of a coattails effect for the Hawthorne airport vicinity.
Due to Space-X's approach and achievements I find myself excited by space for the time since the early '70s when Apollo ended and it was clear nothing much would come from NASA for the foreseeable future.
OK, staying up and watching Neptune All Night in 1989 as our first and last probe for it, Voyager 2, flew past it, and we received the first pictures was cool, but Space-X is about seriously getting out into space potentially in an long term economical way.
OK, staying up and watching Neptune All Night in 1989 as our first and last probe for it, Voyager 2, flew past it, and we received the first pictures was cool, but Space-X is about seriously getting out into space potentially in an long term economical way.
I have a deeper appreciation for the amount of work that goes into an operation like that after having bought [Kerbal Space Program](https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/) and its mobile companion [Simple Rockets](http://jundroo.com/project/simplerockets/).
Engaging with those simulations also makes watching movies like "Apollo 13" into a whole new experience, too.
Congratulations to everyone involved, and I can't wait to see what they do next.
Engaging with those simulations also makes watching movies like "Apollo 13" into a whole new experience, too.
Congratulations to everyone involved, and I can't wait to see what they do next.
It's cool to see so many people excited about this launch. Just wanted to remind people that we have a lot of software job openings right now. People are often surprised to learn that SpaceX is hiring web developers -http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/3890. There are some interesting internal tools projects that are critical parts of each mission. We have embedded developer, PM, and test roles open as well.
I think working on software at SpaceX would be seriously cool, but for unrelated reasons now's not a good time for me to pursue such a dream. I do want to make a move to something like spaceflight eventually - sort of a childhood dream of mine. If I may ask, are there any open-source projects or other technologies you would recommend for someone to work on if they wanted to prepare for such a career a few years from now? Currently I work primarily with with distributed systems / Linux distributions if that affects your suggestions at all... I've heard from some other friends that Ada is a must-have and that Matlab's Simulink is the future - but they do government work exclusively, so I'm not sure how it compares to a "space startup" like you.
I don't think you need to learn Ada! Take a look at our Reddit AMA for some details about what we use - http://www.reddit.com/comments/1853ap. There are a lot of different paths people have taken to get to the software team here, so a strong background with open source on some meaty distributed systems projects in Linux sounds like a good starting point.
What about janitors? I'm sure I could clean up the poop!
I think I'm the reverse of (Gattaca) Ethan Hawke in this situation.
I think I'm the reverse of (Gattaca) Ethan Hawke in this situation.
The fact that SpaceX is hiring web developers is not surprising per-se.
The fact that it is a 'frontend' position and that page says it's 'avionics' - that is surprising indeed.
The fact that it is a 'frontend' position and that page says it's 'avionics' - that is surprising indeed.
I think there might actually be a bit of a scope for some public-side web development that interfaces (indirectly!) with the avionics. Some other launch providers do animations based on vehicle telemetry once the vehicle is out of range. Last night, SpaceX just showed a static image. Given that there's a lot of interest in their webcasts, I imagine they'd like to do better at some point...
[Edit: kind-of wonder if they're using a certain amount of in-house webapp stuff for mission planning, etc., as well]
[Edit: kind-of wonder if they're using a certain amount of in-house webapp stuff for mission planning, etc., as well]
I think most other providers feed telemetry into STK (http://www.agi.com/) to get the animations. There really isn't that much effort involved if using STK.
Yeah, I did expect to see some telemetry. At least, the orbital parameters.
SpaceX should just provide an API for that, we'll build the rest ;)
SpaceX should just provide an API for that, we'll build the rest ;)
You could always try to use an antenna and software defined radio to pull the telemetry directly if nearby a launch site. Probably encrypted though :(
I'd LOVE to work for SpaceX, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in Hawthorne California...
From the glassdoor.com reviews, its long hours and you're paid undermarket (which is fine if you want to work there, you're probably there because you want to work on something cool).
I applied to their Director of Infrastructure position having 14 years of IT experience managing people and large infrastructure and was told I was under qualified. YMMV.
I applied to their Director of Infrastructure position having 14 years of IT experience managing people and large infrastructure and was told I was under qualified. YMMV.
I don't think a lot of SpaceX employees actually live in Hawthorne. Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, El Segundo, etc.
[deleted]
Nice picture from the space-x site- http://www.spacex.com/media-gallery/detail/90781/2601