SpaceX Jan Update Posted: Plan F-1 Class Motor!

[mikejz]

The January Update for SpaceX is posted at there website<br /><br />Here is a quote "The next major engine development for SpaceX is the Merlin 2, where we will aim for a significant increase in thrust and chamber pressure. Merlin 2 will serve as an exact scale version of the F-1 class ( />1,500,000 lb thrust) engine we intend to start developing in a few years. Target performance numbers will be released in the spring. "

 

[grooble]

Is this good then?

 

[mikejz]

I wonder if they will pursue the same design model they are following now. Of building a single engine rocket, then as they gain knowedge cluster them. <br /><br />So start out with a single F-1-like engine then a five engined one. <br /><br /><br />I'm getting excited.<br /><br />If SpaceX goes public I a going to buy

 

[wvbraun]

They could even go head to head with the Saturn V. Musk has said he might build Saturn VI some day...

 

[mikejz]

Indeed he did. Back then he seemed to favor parallel staging. I wonder if he has changed his view on that.

 

[radarredux]

The following is from their FAQ. It may have always been there, but this is the first time I noticed it.<br /><br /><b>Q: What market will Falcon I and V primarily address?</b><br /><b>A: </b>Falcon I will serve the government and commercial small satellite market, whereas Falcon V will initially serve the medium size satellite market and later <font color="yellow"><i>manned spaceflight.</i></font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[wvbraun]

Yes, Musk wants to win America's Space Prize. That means two orbital flights within 60 days with a crew of five by 2010.

 

[wvbraun]

I think I read somewhere that he intends to do just that. <br /><br />Do you think the required vehicle will be too heavy for a Falcon V?

 

[scottb50]

It could be done if the Falcon V comes about as planned. A Gemini based vehicle would easily work. The problem is that's not good enough to sustain commercial operations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

F1 class engine cool <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, I wonder how close I was to the mark when I speculated about this a while back.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"A 5 person spacecraft with a docking system and systems for several days on orbit would be more like 20,000 kg"</font><br /><br />Does the American Space Prize rules have any requirements for length of autonomous flight? If not and the only goal is to ferry people on and off a space station then why require days?

 

[grooble]

Mr Morris came up with a new gemini which could be launched on the falcon 5. Significantly lighter than the original gemini.

 

[nacnud]

Nope the Gemini x3 was supposed to be a six seater, hence the x3 (2x3=6) in the name. I think its down to 5 at the moment though. An Androgynous Peripheral Attach System is also included in the design.

 

[nacnud]

Quite understandable, the gemini x3 is a VERY cut down craft.

 

[no_way]

OK, i just read the summary update on hobbyspace. Impressive work, but i'd caution people not to get overexcited.<br />First Falcon I was supposed to _launch_ a year ago, and just about now they are at the point where "engine development for the Falcon I is drawing to a close". If they are still not finished with the engine, for the life of me i cant figure out how this thing is supposed to launch in a few months.<br />Also i wonder, as they have three Falcon I launches in manifest this year, how far along those next rockets are in production ?<br />Anyhow, best of luck them in their efforts. I'll probably throw a local celebration party as soon as their first payload reaches stable orbit

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...however I believe he is talking about a 2 seated...."</font><br /><br />Nope -- it's designed for five people. You should read the thread. I know it's become huge, and much of the earlier pages have become obsolete as the design changed throughout the thread. However -- I believe it can be done for under 5000 kg. <br /><br />I realize that you're immedaitely skeptical of this, but you should spend some time reading the thread before you completely dismiss the possibility. Presenting some *very* rough numbers (glancing briefly at some of my notes). The original Gemini massed around 3851 kg (changeable depending on which flight). Figure 4000 kg as a round figure.<br /><br />The APAS-89 adds about 300 kg<br />Three passengers adds about 500 kg (butts & seats)<br /><br />Modern avionics (Honeywell E-SIGI) dropped 125 KG<br />Modern communications dropped 210 kg.<br />Combining RM and EM into a Crew Module dropped ~200 kg.<br />Modern ablative dropped ~80 kg<br />Power requirements dropped by ~70% -- plus new tech batteries -- saving ~350kg.<br /><br />~3835 kg.<br /><br />By no means am I saying the G-X3 will be *that* light. However -- I was shocked by just how light the original Gemini capsules started, and even more shocked when I started replacing 60's tech with modern equivalents and watching the weight drop further. <br /><br />Also -- while I realize that the shuttle orbiters and the Soyuz take 2 days to reach the ISS -- there's no compelling reason why G-X3 has to do the same thing. It is possible to make the trip in a matter of hours given good guidance, navigation, and positioning equipment. The target window I think G-X3 should shoot for is 8-12 hours.

 

[grooble]

Morris why don't you apply for a job at SpaceX?

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"normaly launch/docking operations is 2 days, say a day to return, plust the time powered up at the station."</font><br /><br />Maybe it's time to alter what is considered as normal operations <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> During first Vostok double flights the second craft was inserted into orbit within a few kilometers from the first one. And this was in 1962/1963.<br /><br />I understand that there are safety issues to consider but still, two days and about 30 orbits just to inch closer to a space station sounds too much.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...why don't you apply for a job at SpaceX? "</font><br /><br />1. This is really not my area of expertise. I just enjoy complicated mental excercises.<br />2. I live in Orlando -- perfectly happy to stay there. No interest in moving.<br />3. If they're interested in my input I'd be perfectly happy to supply it for them free of charge. Whenever I mange to complete my document to the point that I'm comfortable that the vast majority of glaring (and embarrassing) inaccurate and/or inane statements have been eliminated -- I'll send it to them.

 

[no_way]

"During first Vostok double flights the second craft was inserted into orbit within a few kilometers from the first one. And this was in 1962/1963. "<br /><br />Thats relative positioning accuracy, any details on how accurate the relative velocities were ?<br />

 

[tap_sa]

Orbit data from astronautix.com:<br /><br />Vostok 3: Perigee: 166 km. Apogee: 218 km. Inclination: 65.0 deg. Period: 88.3 min.<br />Vostok 4: Perigee: 159 km. Apogee: 211 km. Inclination: 65.0 deg. Period: 88.2 min.<br /><br />I don't master orbital equations well enough to calculate exact orbital speeds from above but the parameters appear pretty close to each other. They were able to see each other and make direct ship to ship radio contact. Eventually crafts drifted apart because Vostoks were unable to do any maneuvering except re-entry burn. I didn't bother to dig info on further flights, if the russians managed this with 60s analog guidance computers then surely we can repeat the feat with current technology and maintain good safety.

 

[najab]

><i>Good work on the GX3, but I am not buying the numbers ...yet.</i><p>I didn't either at first, but unless there's some really basic thing that we're not seeing, it seems to work out.</p>

 

[najab]

But, as you said, that wasn't a rendezvous - though it fooled the West for a <b>long</b> time. They just launched two rockets from the same pad in quick sucession. To win the ASP or service the ISS you need to be able to do true rendezvous.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"A direct launch to docking is expensive in it's use of propellant."</font><br /><br />I fully understand. However -- the 'expense' is in direct proportion to the mass of the craft being docked. For the shuttle orbiters:100k+ kg -- optimizing the burns is pretty important. For the Soyuz TMA: 7,220 kg -- not nearly as critical. However -- it's at the top of the mass limit of the Soyuz booster to get to a 200 km orbit (Soyuz FG -- LEO Payload: 7,420 kg. to: 193 km Orbit. at: 51.8 degrees). <b>And</b> they're trying to optimize to the greatest extent possible the payload to the ISS, so again it's very important to save every drop of propellant.<br /><br />By contrast -- the G-X3 at sub 5,000 kg, on a booster that can take 5,400 to a <b>400 km</b> orbit has no need to conserve propellant. There are two options<br /><br />1. The Falcon-V takes a 5000-5400kg capsule to a rendezvous orbit at 400 km. Capsule separates from second-stage and docks using onboard RCS.<br /><br />2. The Falcon-V takes a 6000 kg capsule (with additional propellant) to a 200km orbit. Capsule separates from second-stage and uses onboard RCS to generate rendezvous orbit and dock.<br /><br />Either way -- there's not as much need for saving propellant. Also -- upgrades in INS/GPS systems over what exists on both the orbiters and the Soyuz can allow for much more accurate and timely positioning for burns in any event.

 

[no_way]

"I don't master orbital equations well enough to calculate exact orbital speeds from above but the parameters appear pretty close to each other. "<br /><br />Regardless of their absolute velocities and initial positioning, their <i>relative</i> velocities to eachother is what matters for docking.<br />You can pass within 1 meter from the craft but when you are whizzing by with relative speed of 1km/s you are pretty damn far from being able to safely dock.<br />