• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

SpaceX Updates

Page 24 - 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.
O

oldAtlas_Eguy

Guest
Maybe they are negotiating with MSFC to lease the use of the F-1 test stand and turbopump test stand.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
http://www.newspacejournal.com : SpaceX raises another round
November 10, 2010, at 7:08 am

SpaceX has raised another round of financing, to the tune of $50 million, according to an SEC filing by the company on Tuesday. A company spokesman told Business Insider that the additional funding came from existing investors, which would include the Founders Fund and Draper Fisher Jurvetson. However, there appears to be a new (or at least significantly increased) investor in the company: Valor Equity Partners. Valor CEO Antonio Gracias is now listed as a director of SpaceX (he was not listed in SpaceX’s previous SEC filing in March 2009) and SpaceX is now listed in Valor’s online portfolio. (Valor is also an investor in another Elon Musk company, Tesla Motors.)
( links in the article )
 
D

docm

Guest
Talk about going all-in, Orbcomm has canceled plans for backup boosters -

Space News....

Orbcomm Switching to Falcon 9 for its Tardy Second-Gen Satellites

LONDON — Satellite messaging service provider Orbcomm said its second-generation satellites will not be ready before next spring, several months later than planned, with the first two spacecraft to launch as piggyback passengers on a large SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, and not the smaller Falcon 1 as originally intended.

Orbcomm, in a contract-change notice given to satellite manufacturer Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC), said it has dropped the requirement that the satellites be compatible with Russian, Indian and other U.S. rockets, which had been viewed as backup alternatives. The 18 second-generation satellites are now entirely in the hands of Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), a startup launch-services provider based in Hawthorne, Calif.

The decision to launch the first batch of Orbcomm’s second-generation satellites on a Falcon 9, and to incur the $4 million in charges to make the satellites compatible with that vehicle, are detailed in a Nov. 9 Orbcomm filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
>
 
S

stevekk

Guest
Those Orbcomm flights were the only Falcon 1 launches on their manifest. Now, the next F1 launch doesn't happen until 2013.

At least those folks out at Kwajalein have nice weather. They certainly aren't launching any rockets.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
Well SpaceX did prove the Falcon 9, and this is definitely noticed served to the Russians.
 
O

oldAtlas_Eguy

Guest
It’s all about the per kg costs. A Falcon 1 cost more than a Falcon 9 piggyback, basically when the satellite on the Falcon 9 is 1 to 2MT lighter than the max capability the Orbcomm piggyback riders can reduce the costs for the primary by defraying some of the Falcon 9 costs. Everybody wins. Except maybe the Falcon 1 launch crew. I imagine that a lot of the Falcon 1 launch crew is actually working as part of the Falcon 9 launch crew. Eventually when launch frequency increases the standing interchangeable launch crew size will increase also. The engine specialists would be the same for both vehicles as well as some of the other personnel allowing a smaller standing size launch crew that can be used for both vehicles. Until such time that launch rates require enough crew to handle simultaneous launch processing of both vehicles, the vehicle processing crew will be shared between Falcon 9 and falcon 1. The only personnel full time at a launch facility is actually the facility caretaker operations and maintenance staff. They operate the cranes, the fuel storage, water storage, and rust prevention maintenance. Rust prevention is almost a full time job for a fairly large crew.
 
S

stevekk

Guest
oldAtlas_Eguy":3gned08r said:
It’s all about the per kg costs. A Falcon 1 cost more than a Falcon 9 piggyback, basically when the satellite on the Falcon 9 is 1 to 2MT lighter than the max capability the Orbcomm piggyback riders can reduce the costs for the primary by defraying some of the Falcon 9 costs. Everybody wins. Except maybe the Falcon 1 launch crew. I imagine that a lot of the Falcon 1 launch crew is actually working as part of the Falcon 9 launch crew. Eventually when launch frequency increases the standing interchangeable launch crew size will increase also. The engine specialists would be the same for both vehicles as well as some of the other personnel allowing a smaller standing size launch crew that can be used for both vehicles. Until such time that launch rates require enough crew to handle simultaneous launch processing of both vehicles, the vehicle processing crew will be shared between Falcon 9 and falcon 1. The only personnel full time at a launch facility is actually the facility caretaker operations and maintenance staff. They operate the cranes, the fuel storage, water storage, and rust prevention maintenance. Rust prevention is almost a full time job for a fairly large crew.
Just so I can understand, let's assume we are talking about an Altas V or Delta IV instead. The rocket is built at the factory (whereever that is) , and is shipped to either Vandy or KSC. Once it arrives at the launch site, there is a bunch of integration / test / final assembly work required. Are you saying that there aren't permanent launch processing teams at each site ?
 
O

oldAtlas_Eguy

Guest
stevekk":utpyrp5t said:
oldAtlas_Eguy":utpyrp5t said:
It’s all about the per kg costs. A Falcon 1 cost more than a Falcon 9 piggyback, basically when the satellite on the Falcon 9 is 1 to 2MT lighter than the max capability the Orbcomm piggyback riders can reduce the costs for the primary by defraying some of the Falcon 9 costs. Everybody wins. Except maybe the Falcon 1 launch crew. I imagine that a lot of the Falcon 1 launch crew is actually working as part of the Falcon 9 launch crew. Eventually when launch frequency increases the standing interchangeable launch crew size will increase also. The engine specialists would be the same for both vehicles as well as some of the other personnel allowing a smaller standing size launch crew that can be used for both vehicles. Until such time that launch rates require enough crew to handle simultaneous launch processing of both vehicles, the vehicle processing crew will be shared between Falcon 9 and falcon 1. The only personnel full time at a launch facility is actually the facility caretaker operations and maintenance staff. They operate the cranes, the fuel storage, water storage, and rust prevention maintenance. Rust prevention is almost a full time job for a fairly large crew.
Just so I can understand, let's assume we are talking about an Altas V or Delta IV instead. The rocket is built at the factory (whereever that is) , and is shipped to either Vandy or KSC. Once it arrives at the launch site, there is a bunch of integration / test / final assembly work required. Are you saying that there aren't permanent launch processing teams at each site ?
The Air Force has several contracts: Pad processing/maintenance, Engineering/Test support, Operations(major integrated tests and launch). The pad specific workforce such as the site work unrelated to the vehicle itself is local and they are there all year even if no launch. The Vehicle support, Test, engineering, etc are swelled up for major tests but the minor day to day stuff such as assembly does have permanent onsite staff since the tasks are not so much vehicle specific but pad processing specific. Most of what is onsite are techs and a few engineers. The major portion of the engineering support is not permanent onsite. Shuttle processing is unique in that all manpower is permanent onsite techs and engineering, with a very small amount of engineering and management from the hardware venders during launches. Expendables is the opposite in that the most labor intensive tasks at the pad have permanent staff but the items that are short duration such as test procedures that last less than a week usually one or two days and may have several weeks before the next use personnel temporary from the main engineering and manufacturing to perform the tests. As launch rates go up more and more of the manpower is made permanent when costs of temporary personnel traveling from the main plant becomes larger than having them permanent. By decoupoling the three the Air Force manages costs as tradeoffs which are all related to how many launches in a year are projected.
 
D

docm

Guest
How secondary payloads can be launched on 2nd stages, including SpaceX COTS/Dragon/DragonLab flights - a payload bus atop the 2nd stage, under the trunk. Interesting in light of Orbcomms move....

PDF....
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
docm":2a9uww7v said:
How secondary payloads can be launched on 2nd stages, including SpaceX COTS/Dragon/DragonLab flights - a payload bus atop the 2nd stage, under the trunk. Interesting in light of Orbcomms move....

PDF....
Very nice document :cool:
 
O

oldAtlas_Eguy

Guest
The document gives hope to the masses that satellites can be done by small hobby or education groups. With the likelihood of 5 Falcon 9 flights a year, 100 to 500kg of secondary payload availability per flight, and 1/4 the weight being allocated to the small <5kg satellites so that 5 to 25 cubesat size satellites could be launch each flight along with 1 to 5 >50kg satellites. That’s 25 to 125 cubesats a year.

http://www.cubesatkit.com/

I looked up the P-POD or cube sat and what features and hardware kits were available and with <$75,000 a full functioning satellite with attitude control could be done by an organization or collage. Then another $30,000 to $50,000 would be needed for the launch costs of a 1 to 5kg satellite. More than half the cost is the payload integration processing at the pad.

CubeSat Kits remind me of the days of the S-100 bus kit computers of the early 1980’s. You got the parts and then had to assemble it and program it. It is possible for a CubeSat to be built and launched for less than $100k. If you could build your own private satellite and launch it into orbit what would you do with it? What scientific or engineering experiment would you do?
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
Atlasguy, for some reason that question struck me. Could a series of those things have appropriate functionality to find, attach and deorbit space junk? Even if it took 10 years, might be helpful. Probably silly thought.
 
O

oldAtlas_Eguy

Guest
rcsplinters":273he5rp said:
Atlasguy, for some reason that question struck me. Could a series of those things have appropriate functionality to find, attach and deorbit space junk? Even if it took 10 years, might be helpful. Probably silly thought.
Nice thought but the cudesat 1u or even 3u is too small, a 12u cubesat may work but its price is going to be about $500k once you add enough solar cells and fuel tanks for an ION engine plus whatever the ION engine costs. Then it will only be able to pick up about 1/10 its own weight about 2kg of space junk and only items in the same inclination and very close to the same orbit altitude. In order to pick up any significant amount of space junk you would need quite a few of them which would themselves be space junk after they stop working.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
In the same line of thought, how much more stuff can we actually launch into an already busy orbit lanes around our planet?
 
O

oldAtlas_Eguy

Guest
Gravity_Ray":31hn5tmt said:
In the same line of thought, how much more stuff can we actually launch into an already busy orbit lanes around our planet?
The cubesat size satellites are all in very low orbits that decay and reenter in less than two years. Unfortunately parts from other larger satellites that are in much higher orbits are the problem.
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
POPULAR SCIENCE NAMES FALCON 9 BEST OF WHAT'S NEW IN 2010
Praises Innovation of "The First Astronaut-Worthy Private Rocket In Orbit"







Hawthorne, CA – November 17, 2010, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket has won a 2010 Popular Science Best of What's New award in Aviation & Space.

“At SpaceX, we have ambitious goals for the future of human spaceflight. We are working every day to bring about significant breakthroughs that will improve the reliability and cost of space transportation,” said Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO and CTO. “It is a tremendous honor for the Falcon 9 to be recognized by the world’s largest science and technology magazine as one of the best innovations of 2010.”

Popular Science calls Falcon 9 “The First Astronaut-Worthy Private Rocket In Orbit” and goes on to explain, “When NASA retires the space shuttle next year, the only American-owned option the U.S. government will have for getting cargo to the international Space Station is to ride with a private spaceflight company. Such an arrangement became viable in June, when SpaceX’s Falcon 9–a 180-foot, kerosene-and-liquid-oxygen-fueled rocket capable of delivering six metric tons of cargo or seven astronauts to orbit–made its maiden voyage to space.”

Why is SpaceX so proud? As Popular Science says, “SpaceX engineers designed nearly every piece of the rocket from scratch.”

“For 23 years, Popular Science has honored the innovations that surprise and amaze us – those that make a positive impact on our world today and challenge our views of what’s possible in the future,” said Mark Jannot, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Science. “The Best of What’s New Award is the magazine’s top honor, and the 100 winners – chosen from among thousands of entrants – represent the highest level of achievement in their fields.”

SpaceX is featured in this December’s special issue, now on newsstands and online at www.popsci.com.

Watch a video of the Falcon 9’s June 4th launch on www.youtube.com/spacexchannel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS