Space X - Crew Dragon test flight happening now: Launch time 2:49 am EST (0749 GMT) from launch pad 39-A at the Kennedy Space Center. This is the first flight of the specific version of Dragon that will be used for manned flights to the space station. (Previous Dragon flights have transported cargo.) This flight is not manned, the next would have NASA astronauts.

Live video feed of the SpaceX Crew Dragon test flight (including pre-flight countdown)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZL0tbOZYhE&feature=youtu.be

Updates from Spaceflight Now (text posts & video feed available)

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/03/01/falcon-9-crew-dragon-demo-1-mission-status-center/

First stage of rocket is intended to land downrange on a barge.

Quoting Spaceflight Now: Here's a timeline of the major events during the Falcon 9's climb to orbit, including the booster's maneuvers to return to Earth for landing on SpaceX's drone ship:

T+00:58: Max-Q (moment of peak aerodynamic pressure)

T+02:35: First stage main engine cutoff

T+02:38: Stage separation

T+02:42: Second stage engine ignition

T+07:48: First stage entry burn

T+08:59: Second stage engine cutoff

T+09:24: First stage landing burn

T+09:52: First stage landing

T+11:00: Crew Dragon separation from second stage

T+12:00: Crew Dragon nose cone opening

From Spaceflight Now, current status:

T-minus 42 minutes. The crew access arm has retracted away from the Crew Dragon spacecraft in preparation for fueling of the Falcon 9 rocket.

The launch director's poll was completed a couple of minutes ago, and all controllers confirmed they are "go" to arm the Crew Dragon's launch escape system, and "go" for propellant loading.

>>5460569 - love the Max-Q shuttle photo

>>5460602

>>5460527

First launch pad photo by Walter Scriptunas II

Countdown clock at about 9 minutes

The reason why the launch is happening at this hour (middle of the night) relates to the orbital rendezvous with the space station. The launch must happen when the Earth passes under the orbital plane of the space station. Image illustrates (this is not the alignment now relative to day/night, but gives the idea.) Cape Canaveral passes under the plane twice each day - and the launch must happen when the Earth passes under the side of the orbit where the space station would be travelling northwards (northeast, actually) and the rocket flies northeast away from Cape Canaveral to match that orbital plane trajectory. (If the launch happened on the other side, on the southward side, the launch would need to fly over Cuba to reach the station, which is not allowed for safety.) The orbital plane precesses slowly around the Earth, so the necessary launch time drifts around the clock. Since they want to fly today, that means flying at 2:49 am ET. Would be a little earlier on following days if it were delayed.

>>5460720

T-2 minutes

Closeup image from the video of the Dragon capsule atop the rocket

>>5460775

>>5460783

This Q post confused me, because the decision to end the shuttle program was made during the Bush administration. The final launches were under Obama, but by that time there were some essentially irrevocable decisions made to shutter the manufacture of parts and supplies, it would have been very difficult to extend the shuttle program.

In broader context, NASA has been systematically unable to develop an inexpensive efficient rocket throughout its entire history. Saturn V was very spectacular and successful, but extremely expensive per flight, using basically hastily developed throw-away ICBM technology. Shuttle was supposed to open up cheap access to space, but that didn't happen (amortized costs per flight were around a billion dollars, including development costs.) Most observers think that's because of design choices made in the 70s due to reduced development budgets (save some now, spend more later) and DOD requirements for single-orbit missions that land near the launch site (capability never used.) But if you want to be cynical, maybe it was not "supposed" to become the cheap easy access it was expected to be? Then when shuttle was expensive, NASA went through a parade of high-cost projects to enable cheap space access that never flew, now the SLS program is on that track (so expensive it's insane, after decades of development and no flights.) Was canceling shuttle, in the bigger picture, part of a systematic avoidance of cheap access to space?

If that's the meaning, then what to make of SpaceX? They've blasted through all the development of reusable inexpensive rockets, for what is essentially peanuts of development costs. They've achieved in a short time what NASA has failed to achieve over decades. So if someone wants NASA to not make space easy to reach, and SpaceX does it, does that imply that SpaceX is not in alignment with those who want to keep us out of space? Does that make SpaceX the good guys? (Sensible to me) I know some speculate bad things about Musk, it's popular here to have negative views of all the billionaires to come out of the tech boom. I really don't know, but personally I get a good feeling about SpaceX and Musk because they've turned the entire space access industry upside down and actually achieved what others have not done. If others are trying to hold us back, and they succeed anyway and open up space, that seems like evidence of them being good guys.

Q's "specific reason" line makes me believe there is a specific reason for … maybe for the cabal to want to keep us out of space. That intrigues me. I really wonder what that is.

>>5460926

It's possible Obama could have reversed the decision, especially early in his presidency. What I recall is mostly around 2009/2010 when the public realized the shuttle was ending, there were detailed discussions in aerospace tech publications about what would be involved to get key components in production, and it looked really difficult by that point. But that was about a year into his presidency, perhaps the "no turnback" point Q alluded to was earlier in Obama's term.

NASA was pretty useless throughout the Bush presidency at space defense, all they had was shuttle which takes a LONG time to prepare for a mission, not responsive to events in a military sense. But of course we get to that point because, I surmise, someone wants to keep us out of space. The other Q post cited would explain why. (At least at one level; I suspect there is another level to that story.)

>>5460932 the "NASA is for Muslim outreach" story was fake and gay. It's all based on bad reporting of an interview made by the NASA administrator with some Islamic outfit, it was a throw-away feel-good line for a specific audience that got blown all out of context. One of those zombie undead memes that just won't die …