SpaceX: making noise in Texas

[josh_simonson]

A new SpaceX update is up along with photos and video of the first single engine F9 firing on the BFTS and lots of other great info.<br /><br />http://www.spacex.com/updates.php#Update121007

 

[docm]

So they're hot firing the F9 1st stage and plan to have all 9 engines going within a few months. Dragon's heat shield test unit is assembled and the Draco thrusters are coming along.<br /><br />Sounds like they're moving right along. <br /><br />Jim must be grumbling. On NSF he seemed in a bad mood, relegated to complaining it was posted more than once <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

Notice how the entire post completely avoids any mention of an actual Falcon I flight until the very end, where it shyly said:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Since we decided to use the upgraded Merlin 1C engine on Falcon 1, the next flight has been dependent on finishing the development and qualification testing phases of the engine. With development now over, and only two or three months of qualification and acceptance testing remaining, it appears that Flight 3 will occur in the Spring of 2008.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I presume late May early June still qualifies as spring .. which will be "shortly followed by flight 4", with shortly followed meaning anywhere in next few years.<br />

 

[docm]

Why bother flying sooner, but with the old engine? That would be stupid.<br /><br />I say upgrading Falcon 1 flights 3 & 4 to the new engine after some test stand experience with it in Falcon 9 is smart; it'll give them two actual launch experiences with the new engine before Falcon 9 Demo 1 instead of one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

Didnt say sly. I said shy.<br /><br />They have a reason to be, Musk initially boasted about launching in 2004. Their first succesful launch is getting close to four years behind their original schedules by now.<br /><br />Reason to be a bit more modest in the claims about future.

 

[windnwar]

The update is pretty decent, I got a bit of a chuckle though on how to use the space on the roof of the building. <br /><br />I'm a bit curious, being the new engine has better performance then the one it's replacing, what does that do for total payload, or does its fuel consumption offset any gains?<br /><br />Dragon looks pretty good, and the heat shield prototype being assembled was interesting to see. It still looks like a tight fit with 7 passengers. Man I sure hope no one has bad breath on that flight!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<br />The update posted today on their site looks interesting, certainly seems like they are making progress, I hope for their sake they are able to keep it up and and have a successful launch in the spring.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[windnwar]

For the Falcon 1 does the payload increase amount to a significant difference? I've not been able to find the figures for the previous engine to get an idea as to how much of an increase it is. I know the big increase is coming later with the turbopump upgrade. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It still looks like a tight fit with 7 passengers. Man I sure hope no one has bad breath on that flight! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Remember they're stacked in two layers and the Dragon has 15 degree sides vs. Orion/Apollo's 32.5 degrees. More vertical sides makes for easier stacking, especially if it's human stand-ins for sardines <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />Also; the Dragon doesn't have to be configured for a 7 man crew or cargo with nothing in between. IIRC mixed cargo/crew is possible, and if that is the case I'd imagine that the stern seats are what would be left out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[windnwar]

I got bored and did some digging around, turns out the original merlin 1a was to be 77,000lbf and actually tested out at 81,000 while the 1b that never was flown was rated at 85,000lbf. <br /><br />However the current Merlin 1C is at 102,000lbf. Took a bit of digging through the archive updates on the site to find the details. Thats actually a pretty major increase in overall thrust from the original engine and they are planning to get an additional 20% increase out of the new turbopump upgrades. I'd say the regen definately was a major increase, I'm still curious at to what sort of difference in launch payload it'll make. Will it need more fuel to take advantage of the increased output? There is the upcoming Falcon 1e that is stretched to carry an additional 10,000 pounds of propellant. I guess the question is, will they have to extend the Falcon 9 tanks to carry more fuel as well once the turbopump upgrade is done. <br /><br />The next upgrade though should put them over a million pounds of thrust on the F9. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Which translates to >3 million lb/ft on the F9 Heavy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

Personnally, I'm really encouraged by this update of SpaxeX. They seem to be moving good and in the right direction. <br /><br />In the update they mention why they use 9 engines for the first stage. RELIABILITY! It would be interesting to see their buisness plan, and I bet reliablility of the rocket has much to do with keeping costs down.<br /><br />So Falcon 9 can loose more than one engine and still keep moving. They mention that in the airline industry the planes should be able to loose engines and still make the flight. Actually I've only heard the requirment to be ONE engine, even for the four engine planes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Whenever I hear multiple rocket engines discussed it always turns to this being "bad" because with more turbopumps etc. it somehow reduces reliability. I can see it to a degree given the stresses, but if that is truly the case then build better ones, dammit <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />That said it seems to me if you over-design the components and accept a bit less performance/mass it's much less of a factor and could be turned in to an advantage as in the aircraft industry. <br /><br />How many of you would like to fly NY to LA in a plane with just ONE engine?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I can see it to a degree given the stresses, but if that is truly the case then build better ones, dammit<br /><br />That said it seems to me if you over-design the components and accept a bit less performance/mass it's much less of a factor and could be turned in to an advantage as in the aircraft industry.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Nice rant, lol. It seems to me that Musk is trying to do something different than all the rest are. Sure it may not make sense from a rocketeering standpoint but if he get the numbers (that is reliability stats) he want he may be able to leverage that into more business and bring down prices. On the other hand, he may fail. But I guess that's business for ya, gotta have risk in there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[strandedonearth]

<font color="yellow"><br />"Which translates to />3 million lb/ft on the F9 Heavy."<br /><br />No, 3 M pounds of thrust on the F9 means each engine would have to produce 333,333 pounds of thrust </font><br /><br />He refers to the F9 Heavy, 3 cores equals 27 engines. *ships SG more coffee* <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[holmec]

102,000 lb/ft X 27 engines = 2,754,000 lb/ft <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[strandedonearth]

I stand corrected. Looking back, the 1Mlb thrust per F9 core figure was based on this post: <br /><br /><font color="orange">However the current Merlin 1C is at 102,000lbf. Took a bit of digging through the archive updates on the site to find the details. Thats actually a pretty major increase in overall thrust from the original engine and they are planning to get an additional 20% increase out of the new turbopump upgrades. I'd say the regen definately was a major increase, I'm still curious at to what sort of difference in launch payload it'll make. Will it need more fuel to take advantage of the increased output? There is the upcoming Falcon 1e that is stretched to carry an additional 10,000 pounds of propellant. I guess the question is, will they have to extend the Falcon 9 tanks to carry more fuel as well once the turbopump upgrade is done.<br /><br />The next upgrade though should put them over a million pounds of thrust on the F9.</font><br /><br />Meaning after the turbopump upgrade, which is yet to be done. So it's all hypothetical.

 

[moonmadness]

SpaceX Successfully Completes NASA Systems Requirements Review for Dragon Spacecraft Demonstration to Berth at International Space Station <br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24316 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>

 

[holmec]

That wasn't posted before? <br /><br />Nice video on it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

No. This is another step; evaluation of the 3rd COTS flight where Dragon connects to ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

Thanks, it gets confusing with all the acronyms.<br /><br />Then I guess they are moving right along. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[comga]

That's the eighth COTS milestone SpaceX has made on schedule, and brings the total of payments from NASA to $140M.<br /><br />Note that this is the second milestone payment of Fiscal 2008, for which the total is $109. This fits within the reduced COTS funding of $160M in the new appropriations bill. <br /><br />Of course the last of these '08 milestones, still (stubornly?) scheduled for next September, is Demo Mission 1, the inaugural flight of the Falcon-9.

 

[docm]

We'll see how the ramp-up to 9 engines on the test stand goes. If they can get that done in the 3-4 months they allocated in the recent update they could have a shot at September. Might also be time for some preliminary bet-hedging by the naysayers. <br /><br />As Alexandre Dumas wrote in <i>Ange Pitou</i>: "Rien ne réussit comme le succès" (nothing succeeds like success) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[windnwar]

I wonder what kind of wake up noise that'll be to the nieghborhood when they fire up all nine engines.<br /><br />Should be a hell of a show to see! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

That part of Texas is pretty sparse, but I'd bet the prairie dogs will dive for cover for quite some distance <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>