Space X gets NASA contract

Cygnus_2112 · Apr 29, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am surprised that I did not get any dissenters regarding the notion that Ares I would be cancelled if the Dragon works. It seems to make sense, since it is cheaper, and will be ready LONG before the scheduled date for Ares   Posted by job1207</DIV> You got one. Let's be realistic. Spacex hasn't launched one vehicle yet. Would you believe the following from an owner of an first year NFL expansion team?   Yep, we have lost two games and we should win the next one. Our little running back is coming around slowly, he should help win the next one. But just wait, we are bringing along a bigger guy, once he is ready, we should be winning. With all this, we will be in the Super Bowl this year. Why should you believe Elon?

Cygnus_2112 · Apr 29, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe he was expecting Jim to show up again Posted by docm</DIV>Remember I said something I while ago that would surprise everyone? I was working this for the last year

Swampcat · Apr 29, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Remember I said something I while ago that would surprise everyone? I was working this for the last year    Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV> Hi, Jim.Back again? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

DrRocket · May 5, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.space.com/news/080423-nasa-spacex-launch-contract.htmlThis is a big vote of confidence in the SpaceX family of vehicles, and it represents a new day for the space community. I beleive this could lead to the cancellation of the Ares 1.  Posted by job1207</DIV>The Falcon 1 payload of 250 Kg is a bit short of what is needed for manned missions, or even most unmanned ones.  In addition, there is a tremendous difference in the reliability requirements between unmanned and manned vehicles.  Since Falcon has not worked yet, it might have a hard time with those requirements. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Cygnus_2112 · May 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Falcon 1 payload of 250 Kg is a bit short of what is needed for manned missions, or even most unmanned ones.  In addition, there is a tremendous difference in the reliability requirements between unmanned and manned vehicles.  Since Falcon has not worked yet, it might have a hard time with those requirements. Posted by DrRocket</DIV> The contract includes Falcon 9

qso1 · May 7, 2008

I thought NASA was using the Ares I and Orion ?But they still have to build it and test it before it is in service.Look at this.October 4, 1957 - Sputnik 1, the first man-made object to orbit the Earth, is launched by the U.S.S.R., and remains in orbit until January 4, 1958.November 3, 1957 - Sputnik 2, carrying the dog Laika for 7 days in orbit, is launched by the U.S.S.R., and remains in orbit until April 13, 1958July 20, 1969 - Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, Jr. make the first manned soft landing on the Moon, and the first moonwalk, using Apollo 11.12 years to learn how to get in space and go to the moon .And it takes 15 years now and we are WAY MORE Advance technology and engineering so on.http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/timeline.htmlSome thing is not right. How so and so soon? And what is Stone Aerospace? Posted by nec208Its called 'Crash program". Apollo was considered a crash program. A term rarely heard nowadays and one that implies a given program is being done on an accellerated timeline which Apollo was. NASA didn't think a manned landing on the moon was doable before 1970 according to a July 1960 article in National Geographic. And before the JFK speech, NASA wasn't trying to reach the moon before 1970.JFK in effect, turned Apollo into the crash program it became. Had there not been the committment speech and his subsequent assassination which may have afforded him martyr status. The first men on the moon may well have gotten there much later than they actually did.Heres another example of timelines that reflect what your saying:Early 1960s, Apollo Applications Program (AAP) born.May 1973, Americas first space station resulting from AAP goes into orbit and is occupied not even a month later. AAP to operating Skylab, roughly one decade.January 25, 1984...space station is mandated by the Reagan Administration by his State Of The Union address that night. This after the 1970s in which NASA shunned even the term space station. November 11, 1998, the first piece of ISS hardware reaches orbit. October 31, 2000...the first crew occupies ISS. 14 years from initial announcement to hardware on orbit...two more years to have the first expedition crew occupy station. This after having experience with Skylab. Skylab however, went much quicker not because it was a crash program, but because it relied on existing Apollo hardware.As for Space "X", congratulations to them on getting the contract. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

keermalec · May 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no rule of thumb per se.  However, if you run the numbers through the rocket equation for a delta-v estimate from LEO to MEO of 6 km/s and an Isp = 450 s (H2/O2 chemical), you get about 25% of what you had in LEO to MEO.  Also, a good friend of mine recently published an article in the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets that concludes that for a 20 to 100 tonne MEO payload you will get 5 - 25 tonnes to the surface.  This is for traditional capsule manned type missions.  It is however, also a lot lower than most estimates used for manned Mars missions.  Compounding the two factors you'll get about 1/16th the mass you had at LEO to the surface of Mars.As for the F1, F9, etc. I will believe it when I see it.  They have spent a lot of time trying to get the F1 working but I sure hope they do.  Posted by KosmicHero</DIV> KosmicHero, my numbers differ substantially from yours:LEO to Mars surface delta-v budget: LEO (Low Earth Orbit) to TMI (Trans-Mars Insertion): 3.9 km/s (including gravity losses) Mid-course corrections:0.1 km/s MOC (Mars Orbit Capture): 0 km/s propulsive (use aerobraking) Mars landing: 0.63 km/s (after aerobrake and parachute) Contingency 1%: 0.05 kConsidering 29.6 tons to LEO (from SpaceX.com), one would then need a 20.6-ton Earth Departure Stage to launch a 8.9-ton payload on a 3.9 + 0.1 km/s TMI (details supplied on request). Of this 8.9-ton payload, 1.3 tons would go to the heatshield (Apollo CM fraction) and 2.6 tons to landing gear, landing stage dry mass, propellant and parachute, leaving you with about 5 tons of useful payload on the surface, which is 1/6th and not 1/16th of IMLEO (Initial Mass in LEO).Nimbus, in answer to your query, considering the F9H can launch 15 tons to GTO (from Spacex.com), one can probably use the following rule of thumb:50% IMLEO to GTO (Geostationary Transfer orbit) 30% IMLEO to LMO (Low Mars Orbit) 30% IMLEO to LLO (Low Lunar Orbit) 15% IMLEO to lunar surface 17% IMLEO to martian surfaceNote the martian fractions can vary significantly depending on Earth-Mar conjunction.Also note the Mars figures are surprisingly more favourable than the lunar figures because aerobraking at Mars induces significant propellant mass savings.PS: post edited <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy </div>

nec208 · May 21, 2008

This after having experience with Skylab. Skylab however, went much quicker not because it was a crash program, but because it relied on existing Apollo hardware---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Are you saying the ISS use some hardware that they should not have used and take longer do to the hardware they should not use?14 years to build the hardware is a very long time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · May 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you saying the ISS use some hardware that they should not have used and take longer do to the hardware they should not use?14 years to build the hardware is a very long time. Posted by nec208</DIV>The ISS progam began in 1993.  The first elements were orbited in 1998.  That's five years from project conception to first flight.Space station Freedom was an earlier project initiated in 1984, fabrication begun in 1988, but abandoned in 1990.  Some hardware elements were carried over but the ISS was essentially a new start.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Cygnus_2112 · May 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The ISS progam began in 1993.  The first elements were orbited in 1998.  That's five years from project conception to first flight.Space station Freedom was an earlier project initiated in 1984, fabrication begun in 1988, but abandoned in 1990.  Some hardware elements were carried over but the ISS was essentially a new start.Jon Posted by jonclarke</DIV>All existing Freedom elements were carried over.  The only thing that wasn't  was the truss segements with  propulsion modules.  ISS used Freedom's nodes, modules and trusses.

KosmicHero · May 21, 2008

I did not use aerobraking in my calculations (for convenience and because you wouldn't aerobrake large manned vehicles ... small ones yes).  I also ment LMO (not MEO), excuse the typo.Also, the 25% landed mass is not my estimate, it is a value determined by some people far better at determining that than I at Georgia Tech (Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 45, No. 1 pg 130). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>

nimbus · May 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>KosmicHero, my numbers differ substantially from yours:LEO to Mars surface delta-v budget:LEO (Low Earth Orbit) to TMI (Trans-Mars Insertion): 3.9 km/s (including gravity losses)Mid-course corrections:0.1 km/sMOC (Mars Orbit Capture): 0 km/s propulsive (use aerobraking)Mars landing: 0.63 km/s (after aerobrake and parachute)Contingency 1%: 0.05 kConsidering 29.6 tons to LEO (from SpaceX.com), one would then need a 20.6-ton Earth Departure Stage to launch a 8.9-ton payload on a 3.9 + 0.1 km/s TMI (details supplied on request). Of this 8.9-ton payload, 1.3 tons would go to the heatshield (Apollo CM fraction) and 2.6 tons to landing gear, landing stage dry mass, propellant and parachute, leaving you with about 5 tons of useful payload on the surface, which is 1/6th and not 1/16th of IMLEO (Initial Mass in LEO).Nimbus, in answer to your query, considering the F9H can launch 15 tons to GTO (from Spacex.com), one can probably use the following rule of thumb:50% IMLEO to GTO (Geostationary Transfer orbit)30% IMLEO to LMO (Low Mars Orbit)30% IMLEO to LLO (Low Lunar Orbit)15% IMLEO to lunar surface17% IMLEO to martian surfaceNote the martian fractions can vary significantly depending on Earth-Mar conjunction.Also note the Mars figures are surprisingly more favourable than the lunar figures because aerobraking at Mars induces significant propellant mass savings.PS: post edited Posted by keermalec</DIV>Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nec208 · Jun 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you. Posted by nimbus</DIV> What ?<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

acidrain · Jun 21, 2008

That is awesome, i wish them all the luck and i hope they do well which there project is something to not be dismissed by the nay sayers. I think it is fantastic seeing some of the private sector getting into the game and NASA loosening its reigns on what they have established for these private companies.

Search

Space X gets NASA contract

Cygnus_2112

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

qso1

Guest

keermalec

Guest

nec208

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

KosmicHero

Guest

nimbus

Guest

nec208

Guest

acidrain

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page