SpaceX: Falcon 1 OPERATIONAL

dreada5 · Mar 30, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />SpaceX has done some good demos but has yet to do anything that can be used to trash talk <hr /></blockquote> I'd need to check. But in any case, it is true that is he's shooting for Boeing/LM's EELV program. He's seriously gunning for their market share.

holmec · Mar 30, 2007

Oops....wrong kind of floating.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

jimfromnsf · Mar 30, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />But in any case, it is true that is he's shooting for Boeing/LM's EELV program. He's seriously gunning for their market share. <hr /></blockquote> 1. It is ULA's EELV program 2. He has yet to demo/prove anything in this class

gunsandrockets · Mar 30, 2007

"The first stage uses turbo pumps therefore you were referring to the first stage. Getting rid of the turbo pumps to go to a pressure fed system would cause a very large increase in the propellant tank weight." What are the typical differences in mass between a tank for a pressure fed rocket engine and a tank for a turbopump fed rocket engine? I'm interested in the kind of differences for both a 1st stage S/L launch and an upper stage that only operates in vacuum. How do differences in propellant density add into that? Would a tank for pressure fed liquid hydrogen be a total nightmare, but RP-1 not so bad?

dreada5 · Mar 30, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />1. It is ULA's EELV program 2. He has yet to demo/prove anything in this class <hr /></blockquote> 1. And ULA are Boeing/LM. Big deal <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> 2. True, but he now has more credibility then he did last year and if things go to plan, in time he will demo/prove that a far cheaper launch service is possible.

jimfromnsf · Mar 30, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />1. And ULA are Boeing/LM. Big deal 2. True, but he now has more credibility then he did last year and if things go to plan, in time he will demo/prove that a far cheaper launch service is possible. <hr /></blockquote> 1. No, it is not. It is a separate company 2. He hasn't shown anything to prove the cheaper launch service yet

Swampcat · Mar 31, 2007

"1. No, it is not. It is a separate company 2. He hasn't shown anything to prove the cheaper launch service yet" 1. C'mon, jimfromnsf, you're playing word games. ULA has only recently come into existence. Of course, it's a separate company...now, but clearly it was created by Boeing and LocMart. You're pickin' at nits here. 2. He has indeed shown that he can get close, and barring some completely unforeseen catastrophe, it appears likely that he will succeed. Why the cynical attitude? I get the impression you are associated with Boeing or LocMart. BTW, you said a few posts back, "spacex has done some good demos but has yet to do anything that can be used to trash talk[.]" Mr. Musk is not engaged in trash talk. He's simply stating his position and making some comparisons in response to the media. <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>

dreada5 · Mar 31, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I get the impression you are associated with Boeing or LocMart. <hr /></blockquote> What, you too?! lol <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You're pickin' at nits here. <hr /></blockquote> Indeed. Fact is, people like Elon are about change and that's bound to upset some!

jimfromnsf · Mar 31, 2007

I am not associated with ULA, LM or Boeing. Right now, OSC may have a competitor, but not ULA. Falcon 9 much different beast than the Falcon 1. As for trash talk, I am not referring to recent statements, but those he has made in the past.

Swampcat · Mar 31, 2007

"I am not associated with ULA, LM or Boeing. Right now, OSC may have a competitor, but not ULA. Falcon 9 much different beast than the Falcon 1. As for trash talk, I am not referring to recent statements, but those he has made in the past." Care to elucidate? I would agree that, right at this particular moment in time, SpaceX isn't exactly competing with anyone. I have no doubt, however, that once they work the bugs out of Falcon 1 and move on to the Falcon 9 things are gonna change. I'd also posit that the competition isn't going to cause ULA and its parent companies too many worries. They'll adapt and we'll all win...note LocMart's recent interest in a crewed spacecraft. <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>

jimfromnsf · Mar 31, 2007

Of course, it isn't going to worrying Boeing and LM, they are out of the EELV business. LM recent "interest" ? LM is the CEV contractor. Do you mean Atlas interest? In that case, it is ULA

Swampcat · Mar 31, 2007

"Of course, it isn't going to worrying Boeing and LM, they are out of the EELV business." So you keep saying, as if Boeing and LocMart have no interest in ULA. Give me a break <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />. "LM recent 'interest' ? LM is the CEV contractor." Thanks for the old news. Here is some new news that might help you understand what I meant. "Do you mean Atlas interest? In that case, it is ULA[.]" See both aboves. And that's all I have to say about this as it's getting pretty much off topic. <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>

jimfromnsf · Mar 31, 2007

Obivously, you don't understand that Boeing and LM DON'T have any interest in ULA. The NASAspaceflight.com article you reference is pre ULA. All that work is now ULA. ULA is "divorced" from Boeing and LM. Aside from the support services (pay, healthcare, etc) that ULA is contracting from the parent companies until theirs is fully operational, there are no ties to the parent company. There is no longer a Boeing Delta or LM Atlas, they are ULA Deltas and Atlases. Neither parent company will make any PR associations with the LV's, unless they provide a commercial contract /* deleted */

Boris_Badenov · Mar 31, 2007

Obivously, you don't understand that Boeing and LM DON'T have any interest in ULA. Really? In December 2006, the Corporation completed the United Launch Alliance (ULA) joint venture transaction. As a result, the Corporation’s outlook for its 2007 net sales has been updated to reflect the completion of this transaction. The Corporation will no longer record sales on Atlas launch vehicles and related support sold to the U.S. Government as ULA will be accounted for under the equity method of accounting. Under this method of accounting, the Corporation will recognize its 50% ownership share of ULA’s earnings. News from Lockheed Martin I Googled "United Launch Alliance principal stockholder" & that was the ninth in line. As you can see LockMart gets 50% of ULA's profits. Thats a rather large stake in what happens in a company they have no interest in. I guess the overall lack of knowledge you display on this forum is why so many people prefer you post on NASAspaceflight .com instead. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <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> </div>

edkyle98 · Mar 31, 2007

>"I think a slightly heavier tank with a gas operated floating piston would make more sense, eliminate turbo-pumps altogether."< My understanding/recollection is that the Falcon 1 second stage Kestrel engine is pressure-fed, so that it has no turbopumps to eliminate. Check me on that, though. - Ed Kyle

jimfromnsf · Mar 31, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Googled "United Launch Alliance principal stockholder" & that was the ninth in line. As you can see LockMart gets 50% of ULA's profits. Thats a rather large stake in what happens in a company they have no interest in. <hr /></blockquote> Since you had to google it, it shows you have a lack of knowledge. "interest" was the wrong word. The involvement of the parent companies is limited to just sharing of the profits. They don't have any say in the day to day operations and there is a firewall between ULA and parents companies. The parent companies are like silent partners. USA and ULA are the same type of companies. Just as USA does the shuttle work and profits go to LM and Boeing, USA still has to contract Boeing for shuttle vehicle integration. And still the fact remains, Delta and Atlas are ULA and no longer LM and Boeing

Boris_Badenov · Mar 31, 2007

Since you had to google it, it shows you have a lack of knowledge. That's a circular argument. The involvement of the parent companies is limited to just sharing of the profits. If I own 1 unit of stock, I get to vote at stockholders meetings, if I own 50% of the company my vote carries just a little more weight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <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> </div>

scottb50 · Apr 1, 2007

Your right, they use Helium to pressurize the tank. All I'm saying is you use the Helium first to cool the engine, which gets it hotter and raises the pressure, then you use it to feed the propellant to the engine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Boris_Badenov · Apr 1, 2007

I'll have to see one fly & deliver it's payload before I call it operational. And now after saying that, I believe the next one will do so successfully. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <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> </div>

josh_simonson · Apr 1, 2007

>"1. No, it is not. It is a separate company />2. He hasn't shown anything to prove the cheaper launch service yet" />1. C'mon, jimfromnsf, you're playing word games. ULA has only recently come into existence. Of course, it's a separate company...now, but clearly it was created by Boeing and LocMart. You're pickin' at nits here. />2. He has indeed shown that he can get close, and barring some completely unforeseen catastrophe, it appears likely that he will succeed. Why the cynical attitude? I get the impression you are associated with Boeing or LocMart. What Jim meant by that second part was that SpaceX has not actually demonstrated that their pricing is sustainable. These first two flights have cost over $50m each! We'll have to see in 5-10 years if SpaceX can make enough flights at these prices (indexed to inflation) to keep the company in the black.

dreada5 · Apr 1, 2007

josh, agreed. But I don't think anyone said otherwise. Some folks on this forum are just more optimistic that SpaceX will succeed compared to those 'full of knowledge' over at nsf. lmao SpaceX is good for the industry. Keep the dinosaurs on their toes.

docm · Apr 1, 2007

If they succeed enough to fly the Falcon 9 Heavy (LEO 28,000 kg/GTO 12,000 kg) it'll do more than "keep the dinosaurs on their toes". Here's my stab at futurism; assume SpaceX succeeds. Musks pattern, and his statements, indicate an IPO would follow. Next comes a buyout by ULA or some other aerospace entity giving them a range of boosters up to heavy's, maybe even the BFR & Merlin 3. They even get a spaceship for good measure. SpaceX becomes the cheapest system development program possible for the buyer. Is this my preferred outcome? No. That would be a merger between the successful NewSpace companies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dreada5 · Apr 1, 2007

Wouldn't bother me as long as we saw cheaper launch services, increased LEO access for Joe Bloggs, NewSpace dominating LEO activity (its way overdue) and perhaps even stretching out to the moon. If such a buyout, by those interested in maintaining the status quo, means that Elon ends up not facilitating any of these things, imo I think he would have missed a trick!

jimfromnsf · Apr 1, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Some folks on this forum are just more optimistic that SpaceX will succeed compared to those 'full of knowledge' over at nsf. <hr /></blockquote> Ignorance is bliss

CalliArcale · Apr 1, 2007

All right, that's enough cheap shots, folks. Make an effort to keep this thread on topic, okay? There's no reason to insult one another. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

SpaceX: Falcon 1 OPERATIONAL

dreada5

Guest

holmec

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

dreada5

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

dreada5

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

edkyle98

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

scottb50

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

dreada5

Guest

docm

Guest

dreada5

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page