SpaceX Updates

Page 19 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

docm

Guest
My understanding is that Dragon would descend on parachutes then, similar to Soyuz, the landing engines would fire at the last minute to soften the impact of touchdown.
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
docm":1f7adcjv said:
My understanding is that Dragon would descend on parachutes then, similar to Soyuz, the landing engines would fire at the last minute to soften the impact of touchdown.
Where did you get this? I haven't seen anything yet.
 
D

docm

Guest
Besides connecting the multitude of dots supplied by Musk in his recent interviews, logic based on first principles; those being that a parachute will always be part of a manned Dragon in case of an emergency landing over water and that the LES rockets will always be part of a crew Dragon. Given these;

a. if the 'chutes are present but routinely not deployed at altitude and the rockets fail below the 'chutes minimum deployment altitude then it's a loss of crew. Splat.

b. both the 'chutes deploy and the rockets fire, giving the Dragon a soft landing on solid ground.

c. if the 'chutes are present and deployed then the rockets fail then the crew gets a good jostling and a few cuts & bruises, but they're likely to survive.

d. if the 'chutes are present but not deployed at altitude and the rockets fail above the 'chutes minimum deployment altitude then the crew gets a good jostling and a few cuts & bruises, but they're likely to survive.

e. if the 'chutes are present and deploy then one fails and the rockets fire the crew gets even more bruises, and perhaps a fracture or two, but most are likely to survive.

b, c, d and e are better outcomes than a. b being the best outcome it should logically be the default mode of operation.
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
docm":20a3edtj said:
Besides connecting the multitude of dots supplied by Musk in his recent interviews, logic based on first principles; those being that a parachute will always be part of a manned Dragon in case of an emergency landing over water and that the LES rockets will always be part of a crew Dragon. Given these;

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
So you're just guessing. :mrgreen:
 
D

docm

Guest
Not really. The pusher is now confirmed, and the parachute is clearly in the design. There is no way the <1000 kg of propellant the pusher would have at its disposal after a mission could provide the d-v necessary to land the capsule by itself.

(in contrast: the DC-X carried >9,000 kg of LH2/LOX for its short flights)

The pushers best, and safest, landing use is as a terminal thruster used after a 'chute brings it within a few tens of meters of the ground - just like Soyuz.

Sauce for the goose is that with both it could land either on land or sea, important for use as a lifeboat or during an in-flight emergency where your LZ selection is secondary to getting down NOW.
 
J

job1207

Guest
Re: Spacex Falcon 9 Flight 2 COTS -1 Launch

lol, I just got myself temporarily banned on nsf for arguing with a NASA EELV guy about the very articles I just posted.

They are VERY jumpy over there. paraphrasing, they need to rebid the ISS resupply contract. They are going to rebid COTS - D ( which they are ) SpaceX could NOT possibly launch COTS -1, late this summer.

As you know, when I post, I bring links, or questions.
 
T

trailrider

Guest
Re: Spacex Falcon 9 Flight 2 COTS -1 Launch

job1207":2x72x59q said:
lol, I just got myself temporarily banned on nsf for arguing with a NASA EELV guy about the very articles I just posted.

They are VERY jumpy over there. paraphrasing, they need to rebid the ISS resupply contract. They are going to rebid COTS - D ( which they are ) SpaceX could NOT possibly launch COTS -1, late this summer.

As you know, when I post, I bring links, or questions.
Any criticism of NASA policy vill be regarded as defeatist, and vill be regarded accordingly! Furthermore, the flogging vill continue until morale improfes! Zer vill be none uf zis "tic, tic, tic"! Ve haf vays to make you "toc"! :shock: :lol:

Or as comedien Mort Sol said years ago, "They wouldn't be in Washington if they didn't know what they are doing... AND THEY'RE NOT THERE!"
 
A

aaron38

Guest
Musk says the engines in a push-off escape system can double as a propulsive landing system, enabling Dragon to land on the ground and saving the expense and time of a water recovery.
With this topology change, I wonder if they'll get started on the escape system sooner? They'll be recovering the cargo capsules, both for re-use and to recover any down cargo returned, such as completed experiment racks. Since a change to ground landings would reduce the cost of the cargo missions as well, the R&D will pay for itself. So they can start using the system on the cargo runs to save money and have plenty of actual mission firings before a human ever sets foot onboard. There doesn't seem to be any reason to wait, unlike the escape tower which has no benefit to the cargo missions.

SpaceX states that the Falcon9 has 24 cargo flights on the launch manifest. No manned launch vehicle has ever had anything close to that number of unmanned flights to prove out the system. It should be very low risk.
 
M

mr_mark

Guest
Ok, let's be clear here. The rockets are only used to assist the parachute landing for ground landings, similar to russian landings. Spacex is NOT saying they are going be doing a ground landing with rockeys ONLY similar to Blue Orgin. Unfortunately, there's too much speed involved and this can only be performed in cheap SCI FI movies such Japanese Godzilla pics. :lol:
 
D

docm

Guest
Re: Spacex Falcon 9 Flight 2 COTS -1 Launch

job1207":35r9idr5 said:
....They are VERY jumpy over there....
That's the understatement of the week! Being in the State of Denial doesn't begin to describe some of those guys :p
 
M

mr_mark

Guest
ALL hail!!! elon musk our new over lord!!

Not sure what you meant by that. Glad to see Spacex is getting a new contract. From the looks of the article it sounds like future canadian astronauts could be training for a future Spacex manned flight.
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
mr_mark":21quod01 said:
From the looks of the article it sounds like future canadian astronauts could be training for a future Spacex manned flight.
You're really reading between the lines to get that out of this article.
 
S

stevekk

Guest
Re: canadian astronauts

mr_mark":78iqwp0w said:
Not sure what you meant by that. Glad to see Spacex is getting a new contract. From the looks of the article it sounds like future canadian astronauts could be training for a future Spacex manned flight.
OK, I'm not sure from the article why Canada is training astronauts. Does NASA owe them a stint on the ISS as part of their contribution to the ISS (2 robotic arms, right ?) We certainly can't lift them up there on a shuttle, so we have to pay the Russians to put another country's people into space ?

I think I read an article somewhere that said the first people up in a Dragon capsule would probably be SpaceX volunteers. They need to prove it out before NASA gets a ride.
 
R

RVHM

Guest
Re: canadian astronauts

stevekk":17r9b0iq said:
OK, I'm not sure from the article why Canada is training astronauts. Does NASA owe them a stint on the ISS as part of their contribution to the ISS (2 robotic arms, right ?) We certainly can't lift them up there on a shuttle, so we have to pay the Russians to put another country's people into space ?
Yes.
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
Re: Spacex Falcon 9 Flight 2 COTS -1 Launch

I'm not anti Space-X but I do see them as another NASA contractor building a rocket to get a government contract. They have to meet the same standards and safety level as LockMart or Boeing, so except for their name how are they better or cheaper than anyone else?
 
M

mj1

Guest
Re: Spacex Falcon 9 Flight 2 COTS -1 Launch

bdewoody":2dr5g92w said:
I'm not anti Space-X but I do see them as another NASA contractor building a rocket to get a government contract. They have to meet the same standards and safety level as LockMart or Boeing, so except for their name how are they better or cheaper than anyone else?
I'm more of a fan of commercial spaceflight than SpaceX in particular, but to respond, as it see it, SpaceX is not just "another NASA contractor". A subcontractor would provide NASA with support for a NASA sponsored launch. SpaceX is not doing that. They are launching their own rockets and NASA is just one of their many customers. They have over 40 launch orders from sources other than NASA, and more to come. What makes them cheaper than NASA and others in the industry is their in-house design-to-manufacturing-to-launch process. They have direct control over every aspect of their Falcon rockets and use very few, if any subcontractors. I believe that they are the only rocket launching firm that can say that. It allows them to undercut the launch costs of a Boeing or a LockMart. In addition, their actual launch process is more streamlined and responsive than NASA's. Did you notice that when the last Falcon 9 launch aborted, they were able to quickly reset and resume the countdown within an hour or so? NASA would have had to completely scrub the launch, detank the rocket, etc.

There is already another Falcon 9 being queued up for launch and several Falcons in various stages of assembly. I don't know if we can make a blanket statement that the commercial guys can potentially do LEO cheaper than NASA, but SpaceX has proved that it has the infrastructure in place to give it a go.
 
D

docm

Guest
http://www.wacotrib.com/opinion/editori ... 31129.html

EDITORIAL: Hear SpaceX engines roar

Friday June 25, 2010

Should the ground shake this week or next, fear not. It’s likely just SpaceX testing its nine-engine Falcon 9 rocket cluster at its McGregor outpost.

We appreciate SpaceX notifying us in advance after its surprise three-minute test in fall 2008, when Wacoans stepped outside their homes to nervously ponder a low but sustained roar and a dim glow in the nighttime sky. Some feared we had been nuked.

When we hear the tests now, we can reflect on SpaceX’s many successes of late, including its successful rocket launch at Cape Canaveral, its $492 million deal to launch satellites for a Virginia tech company and its agreement to launch an observation satellite for Taiwan.

Then we can rest assured that the roar off in the distance is the very sound of success, both for the Waco area and for private enterprise’s foothold in outer space and our future.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
mr_mark":1695exq7 said:
ALL hail!!! elon musk our new over lord!!

Not sure what you meant by that. Glad to see Spacex is getting a new contract. From the looks of the article it sounds like future canadian astronauts could be training for a future Spacex manned flight.
Itsa joke im preempting the conspiracy theorist and such. :roll:

Think about it this way to be a super villian you have to,

Be rich and intelligent: Check

Have some huge device capable of delivering a massive warhead/sunbeam/asteroid: Check

Have a evil laugh: Not sure..

Secret base and organization: SpaceX, check.

So he's doing pretty good.

Plus maybe if im real nice i can get the chance to be SpaceX test monkey on dragon :D
 
J

job1207

Guest
answering up aways, DOD and the govt has always contracted on a cost plus basis. This is an incentive for indusctry to INCREASE costs. Which they gladly do.

Also, Spacex is vertically integrated.

Also, they are tackling these problems with MUCH smaller teams. ( no doubt as a result of fixed price contracts )

Also, they President of the company is both chief accountant and chief technology officer. So, he has the power to keep the company lean, and also make decisions quickly.

Now, all of that does not have to lead to success, or less expensive rockets, but in this case, it appears to be the case. SpaceX is getting international contracts, in addition to NASA contracts. this has NOT happened in a generation.

In other news, the Tesla priced its IPO today. That says that the IPO for SpaceX may not be far behind. Also, is says that the business community is buying Elon Musk. ( Tesla is not yet cash flow positive ) From what I understand given that SpaceX is a private company, SpaceX IS profitable. ( from the chief himself......and his investor. )
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Are there any plans to sell Merlin engines as a separate product on the market ?
 
D

docm

Guest
Interesting tidbit off the SpaceX jobs pages;

https://tbe.taleo.net/NA3/ats/careers/r ... =1&rid=524

Facilities Design Engineer

Job Description:


We are currently seeking an individual to fill a Facilities Design Engineer position at our Texas Test Site. The Facilities Design Engineer will play a large role in our site expansion by designing, planning, and supporting new construction of metal frame shops, a new office building, production facilities, utility infrastructures, and other projects.

Site Information:

Our test site, located in McGregor, Texas, is responsible for testing rocket engines and structures that are designed and manufactured by our Hawthorne, California headquarters. The current site configuration includes five rocket test stands, three structural test stands, a rocket component test stand, a control blockhouse, an office building, a large hangar, and several utility buildings distributed across approximately 300 acres with plans to expand by an additional 350 acres in the near future. Hot-fire tests are conducted with rocket engines varying from ~100 lbf hypergol thrusters, to ~1 million lbf clustered stages. This test site is state of the art with remote/automatic controls and hi speed data acquisition systems.
 
O

orionrider

Guest
SpaceX is getting international contracts, in addition to NASA contracts. this has NOT happened in a generation.
I think being an independent commercial venture is a big advantage on the international market. Many customers won't buy from Boeing or LM because these companies are too obviously linked to the American government.
The US has become the source of so much international resentment and distrust that some operators would rather buy Russian, European or Chinese services. Like some national airlines buy Airbus instead of Boeing solely on political grounds. The 'neutral' nature of SpaceX will probably make it more acceptable to foreign customers.
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
docm":33c2qn4d said:
Interesting tidbit off the SpaceX jobs pages;

https://tbe.taleo.net/NA3/ats/careers/r ... =1&rid=524

Facilities Design Engineer

Job Description:


We are currently seeking an individual to fill a Facilities Design Engineer position at our Texas Test Site. The Facilities Design Engineer will play a large role in our site expansion by designing, planning, and supporting new construction of metal frame shops, a new office building, production facilities, utility infrastructures, and other projects.

Site Information:

Our test site, located in McGregor, Texas, is responsible for testing rocket engines and structures that are designed and manufactured by our Hawthorne, California headquarters. The current site configuration includes five rocket test stands, three structural test stands, a rocket component test stand, a control blockhouse, an office building, a large hangar, and several utility buildings distributed across approximately 300 acres with plans to expand by an additional 350 acres in the near future. Hot-fire tests are conducted with rocket engines varying from ~100 lbf hypergol thrusters, to ~1 million lbf clustered stages. This test site is state of the art with remote/automatic controls and hi speed data acquisition systems.
I wonder what they’re going to do about sound suppression? If they get too noisy the neighbors will start hollering for them to shut up or get out of the neighborhood. :evil:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY