Remember SpaceX? Update Poasted......

[mikejz]

July 6, 2006 Update <br />My apologies for the long delay in providing an update. Between the Falcon 1 return to flight, Falcon 9 development and the NASA COTS program, this has been an inordinately busy period for SpaceX. <br /><br />I will post the findings of the DARPA/SpaceX Return to Flight Board on the SpaceX website in about two weeks. The final meeting of the board was last week and the results will be posted after the DARPA senior leadership is briefed. <br /><br />No major surprises were uncovered in the course of the investigation, so perhaps more interesting is the broader set of design & process improvements that constitute "Falcon 1.1". I will post whatever I can, excluding only proprietary or ITAR restricted information. <br /><br />At the end of July, I will post a detailed update on Falcon 9. We've made a tremendous amount of progress on that front. Except for the fairing (nosecone), we are 90% done with all the manufacturing tooling and should have serial number 1 of the first stage built within three to four months. We are targeting a stage hold down, multi-engine firing in about six months. <br /><br />On the business front, SpaceX now has ten launches on manifest and is on track to be cash flow positive in 2006, our fourth full year of operation. <br /><br />---Elon<br />

 

[crix]

I like the software-esque nomenclature, "Falcon 1.1" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Glad to hear the modifcations and improvements are coming along. It's fortuitous that Falcon I failed on its first flight, losing only a minor satellite and not a big commercial one. Better to get the kinks out now, learn from them, and apply them towards improvements of all SpaceX's planned craft.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I'm glad we finally got an update, & stunned at the progress they have made. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Excellent news!<br /><br />Falcon will be only the second commercially-developed ELV in the world (the first being Pegasus), and the first to use liquid propellants. (Pegasus runs on solids, except for any kick motor, which is generally hydrazine-powered.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I like the software-esque nomenclature, "Falcon 1.1"</font>/i><br /><br />You can tell that Elon, like so many new space entrepreneurs, came out of the computer/Internet field.</i>

 

[barrykirk]

Great to hear about SpaceX. I was wondering what happened to them. I'm looking forward to see what <br />design improvements will be implemented for the<br />Falcon 1.1<br /><br />Normally with software updates, number increments<br />after the decimal point are minor updates while<br />increments before the decimal point are major updates. With the Falcon series, they don't have that numbering<br />option, because the first number is used to indicate the number of engines in the first stage.<br /><br />Is this a major upgrade or a minor upgrade?<br /><br />Hopefully we will find out by the end of july.<br /><br />Thanks for the update mikejz.

 

[robotical]

Ah, thank you, I was just wondering about them. Nice to know they're making progress. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[subzero788]

Glad to hear they're back on track. Elon makes no mention of when the Falcon 1 will be "returned to flight"--anyone have any idea? I recall hearing a September launch mentioned.

 

[mikejz]

I believe that DARPA is paying for a dummy-sat launch in Q4.

 

[tohaki]

Are there any videos available of the Falcon 1 launch attempt?

 

[mikejz]

Not of the failure.<br /><br />I find if really funny that SpaceX didnt say a word about ITAR until after they experienced an embarrassing failure.

 

[crix]

Why is that funny?<br />

 

[crix]

Yes, there are several videos at http://www.spacex.com/ however they do not show the failure, which was probably a good decision. I know if I had the visions of what looked like a really bad failure stuck in my head I'd be less likely to look to SpaceX for launch services. And as simply a space advocate it helps me keep faith in SpaceX's success ... which feels good.

 

[j05h]

Elon showed the entire Falcon I launch video up to impacting the reef at ISDC. I agree that they should maintain a shiny website as far as that video goes.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[cretan126]

Maybe they were accused of helping North Korea with the Taepo Dong: the results of their respective first flights were similar.<br /><br />(BTW: Lest anybody get to spun up about false accusations, this is meant as a joke).

 

[frodo1008]

The failure did indeed have one very good affect in Elon Musk and company. It now seems as if they are truly concentrating on Falcom I, instead of making all those statements about future launchers larger even than the Saturn V. <br /><br />This concentration will increase their chances fo a total success with the next launch immeasurably! <br /><br />I am not trying to sound negative here, as I do wish them all the success in the world!!

 

[nacnud]

Truely concentraing on the Falcon I? It seems to me that they also spent a lot of time on the Falcon 9.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">At the end of July, I will post a detailed update on Falcon 9. We've made a tremendous amount of progress on that front. Except for the fairing (nosecone), we are 90% done with all the manufacturing tooling and should have serial number 1 of the first stage built within three to four months.</font>

 

[frodo1008]

If they don't first establish a very good reliablity record with Falcon I then all the work on Falcon 9 will be a waste!

 

[j05h]

> If they don't first establish a very good reliablity record with Falcon I then all the work on Falcon 9 will be a waste!<br /><br />It depends. If SpaceX spends the next 10 years perfecting FalconI, they might lose the opportunity to make the Falcon 9. A few working Falcon I launches would be a great start, but they could just take the leap to medium-lift and still succeed. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

"If they don't first establish a very good reliablity record with Falcon I then all the work on Falcon 9 will be a waste!"<br /><br />I am sure that SpaceX is capable of both. I have complete confidence in the technology and the management, both of which are unique and brand spanking new. It is easy to criticize but look at how successful SpaceX has been in a real short time despite all the legal and logistics delays. There are still many more hurdles to cross than have already been but I am confident that SpaceX will be successful in the Falcon 1 and the Falcon 9 testing this year. IMO the problems that SpaceX have had in the last couple of years have been easy to fix problems. It appears that the fundamental technological problems have been solved but it has been procedural and logistical shortfalls that have been holding them back. I just hope Elon doesn't run out of money before this perfectly great business idea gets perfected.<br /><br />Side question... Are they still pursuing the Falcon 5? In know the emphasis has been on the 1 and 9 but is the 5 still alive?<br /><br />SLJ

 

[j05h]

Falcon 5 is a partly-fuelled Falcon 9. SpaceX has shown amazing progress from the start. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[comga]

subzero788: "Elon makes no mention of when the Falcon 1 will be "returned to flight"--anyone have any idea? I recall hearing a September launch mentioned."<br /><br />Someone at SpaceX (who will not be named) casually mentioned October or November in a discussion. <br /><br />The Falcon 9 user manual is supposed to be released later this month.

 

[scottb50]

5 or 9 engines adds a lot of complications. It would be much better to grow the engine then slapping on more. If the design is so advanced and revolutionary it should be easier to uprate the engines and use fewer of them. <br /><br />Realistically, if you have nine engines the odds of one failing is a lot higher than if you had three, if that failure takes out another two or three engines you have even more problems. As a former commercial pilot I would feel much better with three or four engines over water, but I agree with Boeing, two engines are statistically safer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

From their webpage:<br /><br />Why do we believe Falcon is a high reliability design?<br /><br />The vast majority of launch vehicle failures in the past two decades can be attributed to three causes: engine, stage separation and, to a much lesser degree, avionics failures. An analysis of launch failure history between 1980 and 1999 by Aerospace Corporation showed that 91% of known failures can be attributed to those subsystems.<br /><br />Engine Reliability<br />It was with this in mind that we designed Falcon 1 to have the minimum number of engines. As a result, there is only one engine per stage and only one stage separation event – the minimum pragmatically possible number.<br /><br />In the case of Falcon 5, there are five first stage engines and Falcon 9 has nine Merlin engines clustered together. These vehicles will be capable of sustaining an engine failure at any point in flight and still successfully completing its mission. This actually results in an even higher level of reliability than a single engine stage. The SpaceX five and nine engine architectures are improved versions of those employed by the Saturn V and Saturn I rockets of the Apollo Program, which had flawless flight records despite losing engines on a number of missions.<br /><br />Another notable point is the SpaceX hold-before-release system – a capability required by commercial airplanes, but rarely seen on launch vehicles. After first stage engine start, the Falcon is held down and not released for flight until all propulsion and vehicle systems are confirmed to be operating normally. An automatic safe shut-down and unloading of propellant occurs if any off nominal conditions are detected. <br /><br />Other statements from http://www.spacefellowship.com/News/?p=1136 :<br /><br />One of the most important questions regarding the Falcon 9 first stage is whether having all those engines helps or hurts. The key question in my view is wh

 

[barrykirk]

The failure they had in March would not have taken out a Falcon 9? I don't know anything about the design so<br />I'm stepping out on a limb here.... so I'll start asking <br />questions.<br /><br />1) Does the Falcon 9 have redundent or seperate pneumatic systems for each engine?<br /><br />2) Does the Falcon 9 have a system for detecting a <br />pneumatic gas flow leak and stopping the gas flow to that system? Or does it have seperate pneumatic gas<br />supply tanks for each engine?<br /><br />The reason I ask these questions was that the failure of<br />the first Falcon 1 had nothing to do with an engine<br />failure. It had to do with an auxilliary system.<br /><br />If a pneumatic line failed and their was no way to shut it off and all of the gas leaked out, that would stop all 9 engines. Without having the pneumatic diagrams to examine, I have no way of looking at the design and determining it's reliability.<br /><br />I'm sure that Space X engineers are asking themselves, these same questions.<br /><br />Space X concentrated on making the three "traditional" failure modes, engine, avionics, stage seperation as safe as possible.... and they got nailed by something else.<br /><br />I'm not knocking Space X at all, in fact I'm a big fan of theirs. IMHO they are doing everything correct. I can't recall anything off hand that I've seen from their literature that I disagreed with.