SpaceX Launch Update

[edkyle99]

It IS a myth that large (one could even say huge) solid rocket motors are safer than liquids! There are several reasons for this, one simply being that if they were so much more efficient, safe, and less expensive, then just why is NASA the ONLY rocket launch organization in the world to use such solids?

Gotta work on those facts!

Quite a few use solids. Arianespace (Ariane 5 and Vega), for example, the current commercial leader. India's space agency, which is right now developing a brand new rocket powered by, you guessed it, a pair of very powerful solid motors. Japan's JAXA, which uses two types of solids to lift its H-2A and H-2B rockets. Not to mention United Launch Alliance (both Atlas 5 and Delta 4 use big solids) and Orbital Sciences (Minotaur, Taurus, Pegasus, etc.). Even China tried to develop a solid motor space launcher.

They use them because they provide the most thrust for the least bucks. And they are more reliable, based on flight records.

The new EELV Delta IV and the Atlas V all liquid engined rocket launch vehicles are not only far more reliable, but they are less than half the cost per launch than the Titans were, and certainly far less than half the cost of a shuttle launch! Or didn't you realize that was why the Air Force paid for the EELV program in the first place???

Both EELVs use solids. About half of the EELV launches have been augmented by solid motor thrust at liftoff.

One launch of the Delta IV Heavy put some 56,800 pounds into LEO for a governmental cost of $254 million.

More like $500 million. You have to add the facility contract costs to get the real number.

- Ed Kyle

 

[halman]

I believe that NASA might be the only agency in the world using solids as the core engine for the first stage, and I am pretty sure that NASA is the only agency launching people on solid boosters.

 

[holmec]

I believe that NASA might be the only agency in the world using solids as the core engine for the first stage, and I am pretty sure that NASA is the only agency launching people on solid boosters.

Hmm....Arianespace uses them in the Ariane 5 and is developing a smaller rocket with staged solid fuel.

 

[EarthlingX]

I believe that NASA might be the only agency in the world using solids as the core engine for the first stage, and I am pretty sure that NASA is the only agency launching people on solid boosters.

Hmm....Arianespace uses them in the Ariane 5 and is developing a smaller rocket with staged solid fuel.

Excuse me ?
Ariane 5

I think this is called a 'core engine', solids would be boosters :
Vulcain


Cute show from Missions and launches :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL1xUWgBlFw[/youtube]

 

[docm]

Tons of new pictures, including the F9 2nd stage with vacuum nozzle side on and a Draco cluster firing....

Ken Bowersox's AIAA slideshow presentation (PDF)

Max Vozoff's AIAA slideshow presentation (PDF)

SpaceX Mission Control

2nd stage and Dragon - first good side look with the nozzle?

Engine cluster & skirt

Falcon 9 evolution

 

[mr_mark]

Noticed Falcon 9 heavy now slated for 2012 delivery! Good news for Lunar target dates before 2020.

 

[docm]

Yup. Must have confidence in how their path is moving along.

 

[mr_mark]

Also, this just in from Boeing..."New Boeing capsule to be compatable with Falcon 9 as well as other launchers". This is good news for Spacex as well as the industry. Multiple spacecraft compatable with Falcon 9.

 

[mainmind]

Also, this just in from Boeing..."New Boeing capsule to be compatable with Falcon 9 as well as other launchers". This is good news for Spacex as well as the industry. Multiple spacecraft compatable with Falcon 9.

Do you have a link for that announcement from Boeing? Is that their "Orion lite" concept they developed with Bigelow?

 

[docm]

I'm putting it in a "Boeing/Bigelow updates thread"

 

[frodo1008]

Edkyle99, I am not going to waste my time in arguing with you. Especially as all your arguments are simply and totally moot anyway.

Spacex, is NOT going to be using solids as its principle propulsion system on the Falcon 9, just as ULA does NOT also use solids as the principle propulsion system for the Delta IV or the Atlas V. In fact, I do not think there are any solids on the Delta IV Heavy or the projected Atlas V Heavy.

So, it would seem that the future of the launch industry does not lie with these huge principle propulsion solid boosters, and that IS a fact!!!

The only argument that you made that I find even somewhat reasonable is your statement about launch costs. Do you think that it costs NASA nothing to maintain all the facilities at the Cape to process and assemble the SRB's?

I would however, agree with you that not only such costs as facilities, but also the development costs should quite probably be figured out over the total costs of all expected launches of any rocket system, which would in MANY cases double or even more than double the costs of such systems, regardless of just what propulsion systems such systems use. The entire space shuttle system turned out to be such a system.

The total developmental costs for the EELV's was some $3.5 billion dollars for the ENTIRE systems for both the Delta IV and the Atlas V. I think the compares rather well to ATK's highway robbery of NASA for some $5 billion dollars just for the developmental costs to go from a four segment booster to a five segment booster.

And it IS costs of that nature throughout the Constellation project that have killed it!!

And THAT is also fact!

 

[mr_mark]

Boeing capsule information and compatabilty with Spacex's Falcon 9 launcher is here under FAA presentation. http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presen ... r_C3PO.pdf

 

[docm]

Posters at NSF are reporting that Bolden said he talked with SpaceX people who said they were going to use a pusher escape system.

Sounds like interoperability could be a next big thing.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I'd like to point out that this thread was originally about the March 06' launch of Falcon 1. The only reason it was brought back to life was so EdKyle could whine about his not being able to see sufficient video coverage of it.
All updates should be in the dedicated SpaceX Updates Thread.

 

[edkyle99]

I'd like to point out that this thread was originally about the March 06' launch of Falcon 1. The only reason it was brought back to life was so EdKyle could whine about his not being able to see sufficient video coverage of it.
All updates should be in the dedicated SpaceX Updates Thread.

This isn't about me wanting to see a video!

It is about SpaceX hiding information that its competitors have all provided in similar circumstances. I don't think that SpaceX supporters should be willing to accept, let alone defend, this type of corporate behavior.

SpaceX is about to launch a 300 tonne rocket from a populated coastline. Those who live and work nearby, at a minimum, have the right, I believe, to see what really happened when Falcon 1 Flight 1 failed, including being able to see ground-based video that *does* exist.

- Ed Kyle

 

[nimbus]

The rocket failed. It doesn't matter exactly how many millions of pieces it scattered into. With people on board, the only details that matter are if they made it out, and if the mfg knows what went wrong and how to fix it. The real dreadful thing isn't whether SpaceX fails a couple of times, but whether they'll be able to fail few enough times to survive and make their business profitable enough that access to space does fall low enough.

 

[EarthlingX]

Tons of new pictures, including the F9 2nd stage with vacuum nozzle side on and a Draco cluster firing....

Ken Bowersox's AIAA slideshow presentation (PDF)

Max Vozoff's AIAA slideshow presentation (PDF)

SpaceX Mission Control
http://digitalvideo.8m.net/spacex/aiaa/ ... rol640.jpg

2nd stage and Dragon - first good side look with the nozzle?
http://digitalvideo.8m.net/spacex/aiaa/ ... gon640.jpg

Engine cluster & skirt
http://digitalvideo.8m.net/spacex/aiaa/f9skirt640.jpg

Falcon 9 evolution
http://digitalvideo.8m.net/spacex/aiaa/ ... ion640.jpg

From Max Vozoff's AIAA slideshow presentation

Dragon structural test

Thrust chamber complete

Merlin in assembly

Installed feedlines

Propulsion module

ISS power converter

Milestone 20

Lots of pictures, few words.

 

[docm]

New pictures in the M&L launch thread. Web update of their site imminent.

 

[vattas]

SpaceX is about to launch a 300 tonne rocket from a populated coastline. Those who live and work nearby, at a minimum, have the right, I believe, to see what really happened when Falcon 1 Flight 1 failed, including being able to see ground-based video that *does* exist.

F1 didn't have Flight Termination System, it was launched in unpopulated area, so no need of one. Just shut down the engines.
F9 has FTS. So failure would look completely different - big ball of fire instead of dead rocket body falling to the ground.

 

[mr_mark]

This is just as I thought! There are trolls on this website trying to dicredit Spacex or the new Space plan from NASA. They are looking for info and they don't care who they hurt in the commercial space industry. Don't give them what they want, if you know what I mean.

 

[MeteorWayne]

There is already a thread for SpaceX updates not related to specific launches. There will be a cleanup occurring putting general SpaceX updates in that thread.

If you wish to comment on SPECIFIC launches, use the threads in Missions and Launches. Any general comments about SpaceX will be moved to the to the genral SpaceX thread here.

Moderator Meteor Wayne

 

[edkyle99]

This is just as I thought! There are trolls on this website trying to dicredit Spacex or the new Space plan from NASA. They are looking for info and they don't care who they hurt in the commercial space industry. Don't give them what they want, if you know what I mean.

Those who know me know that I am anything but a "troll".

I am not trying to discredit SpaceX. I would like to see SpaceX succeed, and it has achieved success. In many ways, it is the last American space launch company.

I would like to see SpaceX start acting like a successful company, but no other successful launch services company has gone out of its way to hide as much as SpaceX has hidden, or for so long.

Let me ask you this question. If SpaceX is going to represent the peak of American space prowess, then are you willing to accept that you (and the rest of the world) will not be allowed to know the whole story, but only the PR tid-bits of success fed to you by the company?

Those who say "it doesn't matter" *how* the Falcon 1 Flight 1 failure occurred would reconsider, I think, if they saw a video of the event. When it comes to failure analysis, the "how" is everything.

To those who say "it is none of our business", I would like to point out that taxpayer money has largely been responsible for supporting this company's achievements. The first Falcon 1 launches were part of a DARPA contract. The current Falcon 9/Dragon work is being funded by taxpayers to the tune of more than $1.6 billion. The company appears to be giving the taxpayers a good deal for their money, and I want to believe that this is true, but I would be a lot more comfortable about things if SpaceX wasn't blatantly hiding some basic, important parts of its story.

- Ed Kyle

 

[EarthlingX]

They are already showing more than Microsoft.

This is an example of a post to be either deleted, or moved.

 

[access]

Yes Spacex isn't telling you much. Yes it would be nice if they would tell you more. but no they won't because they are a corporation and at some point you'll have to trust them that they are in fact doing their job.

"But it's our money" does the army tell you what their doing? no. so why should a private company paid by the government?

 

[edkyle99]

Yes Spacex isn't telling you much. Yes it would be nice if they would tell you more. but no they won't because they are a corporation and at some point you'll have to trust them that they are in fact doing their job.

"But it's our money" does the army tell you what their doing? no. so why should a private company paid by the government?

They should tell as much as their competitors, who also apply taxpayer money to the space launch problem.

I'm amazed that so many would rather live in blissful ignorance!

- Ed Kyle