SpaceX Launch Update

[mlorrey]

"I hate to tell mlorrey this, but Boeing isn't exactly shaking in its boots over any of this. Their stock is close to its all time high."<br /><br />Of course it is, as Boeing has successfully spun off its rocket launch business (a major money loser, according to what I've been told) into a joint venture with its main rival. That is the height of liability limitation and a plus as far as stockholders are concerned. <br /><br />The next best thing they could've done is tranferred all their workers near retirement to USA so when it goes under Boeing doesn't have the pension liability anymore...

 

[mikejz]

SpaceX is not competing with Boeing AFAIK as of yet. In the EELV market the fact that LM has been able to secure commercial customers and Boeing has not speaks a lot to who has the better product. <br /><br />The Atlas V has proven to be as reliable as they get, and at $5,000/lb not a bargain, but still quite respectable. <br /><br />SpaceX primary competitor at the moment is Orbital with it's Pegasus. Actually, funny story---when the Pegasus project started it was projected to be a low cost booster too and this low cost stooped other companies from entering the market(forget the price range, but possibly where SpaceX is pricing the Falcon) However costs went up and pushed the price to the $17 million range. I'm not sure Pegasus is the main focus of Orbital's business since it got involved in the rapping of the American tax payer known as hit-to-kill missile defense. <br /><br />My theory is that the same thing has happened to SpaceX, the development costs of the Falcon I have been far higher than expected. Musk faced with the decision of raising the Falcon I's price (possibly doubling it) chose instead to grow SpaceX out of the problem. This is of course a highly risky business strategy, but it's a private company so they can do it. <br /><br />So to recap: The Falcon I has gone the way of the Pegasus and the projected costs did not pan out. In response Musk looked expand SpaceX's product line to compete against the EELV market, where LM is the only real competitor, with Boeing getting thrown tablescapes to keep the Delta IV (and more importantly the heavy) flying. <br /><br />The chance that Musk is taking is that the development of the EELV class Falcon's will actually be on-budget unlike the Falcon I. If successful, he will of managed to parlay the development costs of Falcon I into a successful EELV---and if he fails it's his money.

 

[vulture2]

>> the fact that LM has been able to secure commercial customers and Boeing has not speaks a lot to who has the better product.<br /><br />Boeing is in the embarrasing position of offering its customers a launch for $150M on Delta IV or $90M on Sea Launch. Virtually all commercial satelite customers made the obvious choice, even, ironically, Lockheed Martin: http://www.sea-launch.com/current_launch.htm<br /><br />Both Sea Launch and Atlas V use derivatives of the Russian engine designed originally for the Energia. Who has the better product? I guess you would have to say Valentin Glushko.

 

[barrykirk]

I've been wondering, if the rocket came down at high velocity with most of it's fuel and LOX still on board, did it explode on impact? <br /><br />I haven't heard anything along those lines. Unless, it landed in water. But I heard something about a dead corral reef.<br />

 

[barrykirk]

Also, from what I remember hearing the mission control trailer is on another nearby island from the launch site.<br /><br />How far is that trailer from the launch pad?<br /><br />I would assume that they evacuted everybody out of the fallout path of the projected flight path.<br /><br />Kind of reminds me of an industrial accident I witnessed a couple of years back where a 6' long hydraulic accumulator charged up to 3000PSI and half full of hydraulic oil let go. The valve was at the bottom of the cylinder.<br /><br />Needless to say this 6' steel bottle took off like a rocket and went through the roof of the building about 100' from where I was standing.<br /><br />The first thought through my mind was, where is that thing going to come down. Of course I went and hid under the most solid thing that was nearby.<br /><br />The bottle ended it's trajectory in the parking lot outside and fortunately missed all of the cars.<br /><br />But, when I read that the rocket came down within 250 feet of the pad, well it brought back old memories.

 

[barrykirk]

And LOX and RP-1 do float in water.

 

[tap_sa]

RP-1 yes, LOX denser than water (1.14g/cc) so it sinks ... while boiling a lot.

 

[frodo1008]

The Russian engines are indeed very good engines, they are robust and inexpensive. Of course, a good part of that inexpensive is the difference in the maonetary exchage rates from the US currency to that of Russia.<br /><br />That exchange rate however gets somewhat lost when LM has to produce the engines themselves however.<br /><br />The US government can't afford at this time to totally depend on a foriegn sourse for its critical hardware for its armed forces (and the main user of these launch systems is the military). If the US has a need for something like this and there is some kind of trouble involving such a sourse as Russia, then we are just stuck. This would be unacceptable to congress.<br /><br />On the other hand Boeing being a private company can not only use Russian engines, but even use Ukrainian Rockets for its Sea Launch project. This project is probably the main reason why Boeing decided to get out of the business with the Delta IV. LM didn't have that option with the Atlas V.<br /><br />So, between SeaLaunch, and the government business for the Delta IV, Boeing still has a large presense within this industry, but it is true that they (unlike others) don't have to depend upon it for their main income!<br /><br />It IS going to take some very big bucks for Elon Musk and spacex to become a major player in the EELV sized launch vehicle market. Musk must have some other investors for this. He has said himself that he has enough of his own money for three launch attempts of the Falcon I, and three such attempts would not even be enough to develope one such launch vehicle in the EELV throw weight class! So spacex has had one of its three strikes, if they strike out two more times they will quit the field. I am sorry, but that is the reality of the situation.

 

[josh_simonson]

If it was torn apart in the air, it likely started burning on the way down.

 

[propforce]

Here's a report on the cause of SpaceX 1st launch failure on NSF<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4395<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />".... SpaceX's initial analysis indicates that there was a fuel leak just above the main engine, which caused a highly visible fire.  The fire cut into the first stage helium pneumatic system, causing a decrease of pneumatic pressure at T+25s.  <br /><br />'Once the pneumatic pressure decreased below a critical value, the spring return safety function of the pre-valves forced them to close, shutting down the the main engine at T+29s,' Elon Musk stated in a statement about the incident...."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />Edit: Here's a similar story on SDC<br />http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050326_spacex_falc1_updt.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I really hate seeing pictures of rocket launches with fire in areas where it shouldn't be. Especially after the Challenger.....

 

[tap_sa]

Any idea what the mist is that's coming down along the right side of the rocket?

 

[propforce]

Remember not so long ago, and not too far away? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Water vapor? The LOX tank is higher up and darned cold. I believe the photo was taken fairly close to the ground when the rocket wasn't traveling very fast.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Remember not so long ago, and not too far away?"</font><br /><br />Now that's a nasty flashback. But RS-68s were well protected ... <i>unlike the exposed Merlin</i>. Fridays launch video shows fireball engulfing the whole engine just before liftoff, something that never happens on testfiring footages <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Any idea what the mist is that's coming down along the right side of the rocket? </font><br /><br />I don't know the details of it's engine design so I can only guess, knowing it's a GG cycle LOX/RP engine, I'd venture to guess it's GG exhaust that also acting as a roll control nozzle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

Rhodan,<br /><br />Thanks for getting picture up REALLY fast ! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Yeah, that is the roll vector nozzle output from the turbopump. If you look at a pic of the Merlin its obvious.<br /><br />Yes, there is launch insurance, and it appears from the pic that the leak is coming from the point where the LOX pipe reaches the bottom of the RP-1 tank. This may be due to the launch pad clamps holding the rocket down during the last long engine test, or it may be the LOX contracting the length of the pipe and shearing where its mount structure is welded to the RP-1 tank. Do we know if the LOX pipe has expansion/contraction joints in it?

 

[tap_sa]

I meant the white haze coming down the right side of first stage wall. I guess Josh is right it being water vapour from LOX tank section. GG exhaust is the black soot shooting down on the left side of the nozzle.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I meant the white haze coming down the right side of first stage wall.</font><br /><br />Sorry. I'd swear this CRS is getting to me. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crix]

Gah! Horrendous. Griffin won't allow our new icon of American space exploration to fly all charred up will he??

 

[nolirogari]

Ya' know... even if it failed, it's still cool to see a LOX/RP-1 burner launched. Gotta love it.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I'm curious to know who pays for a failed launch. Does spaceX pay for a failed launch (or reimburse the customer), or does the customer still pay?</font><br /><br />For commercial launches, the satellite customers generally get 'launch insurance' from places such as the Lloyd of London, etc.<br /><br />But for government launches, generally the government 'self insure' for the launch, which means that if the launch fails, the government will self-finance the replacement cost of a new satellite. <br /><br />Whether SpaceX gets paid the full $6+ million depends on the detail contract it signed with the government. But generally there's a bonus/ penalty for failing to deliver payload to the correct orbit, but the launch service provider gets paid for the launch itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">".... it appears from the pic that the leak is coming from the point where the LOX pipe reaches the bottom of the RP-1 tank...."</font><br /><br />I am not familiar with the Falcon vehicle layout. Does it place the LOX tank above the RP tank on the first stage? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Which takes up more volume?