wired article on SpaceX

[no_way]

http://www.wired.com/science/space/magazine/15-06/ff_space_musk<br /><br />a long read with some new interesting bits of info.

 

[no_way]

heh, wired came out with lots of space articles, all online, one interesting with Shana Dale<br />http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/05/a_conversation_.html<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Question:If you had more room in the budget to play with or if you weren’t worried about budget, what kind of projects would you want to see if you could make a wish list? Like gosh, I wish we had the money to do this or do more of this. What do you think?<br /><br />DALE: We’re satisfied with the budgets that we have right now, and we’re balancing in a very appropriate manner within the agency.<br /><br />Question : Fair enough. You know, I wasn’t actually trying to get you in trouble on it, I was just curious what kind of stuff you liked, you know. But OK.<br /><br />DALE: There are a lot of people in D.C. that read your magazine.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />NASA is happy with the budget ? Thats big news ..

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Just read it this morning. It appears as though Elon gets a little "launch fever" sometimes. The last couple of years has been exciting for newspace but I have a feeling the excitement is just beginning. I can't wait to see the Falcon 9 launch. The static fire test will be a great teaser. In the next three or four years we have Dragon, F9 Heavy, ISS docking and hopefully a BA 330 docking as well. An aggressive schedule to say the least and if done, it will be accomplished in one decade. Not bad at all.<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[jimfromnsf]

There is no launch of the F9 heavy on the manifest

 

[rsa_4]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In the next three or four years we have Dragon, F9 Heavy, ISS docking<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Hopefully, they are also planning to have their first successful Falcon I launch within the next three years.

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Falcon 9 Heavy Overview <br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />The Falcon 9 Heavy will be SpaceX’s entry into the heavy lift launch vehicle category. Capable of lifting over 28,000 kg to LEO, and over 12,000 kg to GTO, the Falcon 9 Heavy will compete with the largest commercial launchers now available. It consists of a standard Falcon 9 with two additional Falcon 9 first stages acting as liquid strap-on boosters. With the Falcon 9 first stage already designed to support the additional loads of this configuration and with common tanking and engines across both vehicles, development and operation of the Falcon 9 Heavy will be highly cost-effective. Initial architectural work has already begun, and we currently anticipate first availability of the Falcon 9 Heavy in 2010.<br /><br />Length: 54 m (178 ft) <br />Width: 3.6 m (12 ft) <br />Mass: 885 t (1,950 klb) <br />Thrust on liftoff: 12.2 MN (2,750 klbf) <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The intent of my post was not meant to imply that it was on the manifest. Either way, important progress, updates and testing WILL occur over the next three years that will make the F9 Heavy yet another milestone for SpaceX. SpaceX claims it will be available in 2010, we'll see.<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[thereiwas]

Nice editorial right after the SpaceX article on where NASA went wrong.

 

[holmec]

there is regular Falcon 9 in the manifest<br />http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php<br /><br />I don't see any Falcon 9 heavy pictures any more on SpaceX website. I remeber seeing a Falcon 9 with two large boosters on its side. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Falcon 9 - 9900 kg to LEO (21 825.76 lbs), 5070 kg to GTO (11 177.43 lbs)<br />Falcon 9 heavy - 27500 kg to LEO (60 627.12 lbs), 12000 kg to GTO (26 455.47lbs)<br /><br />Ares I - 24 947.58 kg to LEO (55000 lbs)<br /><br />Ariane 5 - 10,500 kg to GTO (23 148.53 lbs)<br /><br />so it seems on paper that Falcon 9 heavy reaches the capabilities of Ares I and Ariane 5<br /><br />I hesitate to call this "heavy lift" since a 40' cargo container carries 26.480 kg (58.380 lb) of cargo or 30.480 kg (67.200 lb) gross weight.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_container<br /><br />Now the Ares V is supposed to be able to carry 131 541.78 kg (290,000 lbs) to LEO. So that is about equivalent of four 40' cargo containers. So that is what I would call heavy lift. That kind of capability would put the launch industry par with commercial shipping. <br /><br />On the plus side, at least Falcon 9 Heavy should have the capability of launching ESA's ATV's weight fully loaded 20 700 kg.<br /><br />It makes me wonder if SpaceX is successful and Bigelow is successfull, and if a civilian space station is made, will the standard for cargo launch be launching a cargo module and have a tug waiting in orbit dock with it to take it to the space station, or have cargo modules have their own propulsion. I would think the former has the ability to lower cargo launch prices per pound. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Here's a pic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[holmec]

Thanks Boris1961. At the bottom of the pic it says that the Falcon9 S9 was renamed the Falcon9 Heavy. That tells me that the boosters of the Heavy have 9 engines like the main shaft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

with 27 engines, can anyone say N-1 MkII

 

[docm]

AFAIK Falcon 9H won't have to be shipped 2,000+ miles on Russian train tracks <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />IMO that's an interim configuration until their F-1 clone arrives. Then I'd expect each pod to have one of those. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

I know that the legacy of the N-1 is as "Cluster's Last Stand", but it seems to me that the engineering approach is completely different with the Falcon 9 Heavy, especially with regards to failure modes. Equating the two launchers seems like bumper-sticker-level analysis.<br /><br />N-1 basically needed every engine to work, but Falcon9 H has multiple engine-out launch success modes, right? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

i'd feel much safer if this cluster was pressure-fed or pressure-pumped. with turbopumps, i probably wouldnt want to ride on one.

 

[gunsandrockets]

If the first flight of the Falcon 9 heavy was also the first flight of all it's components, such as the merlin engines and common core boosters, then maybe a comparison to the N-1 would make sense. Obviously that is not the case.<br /><br />If anything the Falcon 9 heavy resembles the development course of the Saturn I launch vehicle. And the Saturn I had a 100% successful flight history.

 

[jimfromnsf]

The Dragon is the cargo vehicle. Why assume the F9 heavy is for station logistics?

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Dragon is the cargo vehicle. Why assume the F9 heavy is for station logistics?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Dragon is for persurized cargo for the ISS/ and also manned craft for other missions.<br /><br />I'm just suggesting a possible application for F9 Heavy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[lampblack]

Perhaps a more fair comparison would be with Soyuz, eh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Soyuz only has 5 engines

 

[holmec]

Soyuz has 5 * 4 = 20 engines. <br /><br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Soyuz_rocket_engines.jpg/220px-Soyuz_rocket_engines.jpg <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<br />Soyuz has 5 * 4 = 20 engines. <br /><br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Soyuz_rocket_engines.jpg/220px-Soyuz_rocket_engines.jpg <br />------------<br />Don't confuse engines with nozzles, the Soyuz has 5 engines with each engine having four nozzles.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Don't confuse engines with nozzles, the Soyuz has 5 engines with each engine having four nozzles.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I was wondering about that. But how do you define engine in this case? <br /><br />Does it have one reaction chamber and four nozzles? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

--------------------<br />The thrusters have an RD-107A engine which uses liquid oxygen and kerosene. Each engine has 4 combustion chambers to which are added two other chambers for fuelling the so-called reaction control engines for changing the launcher’s direction. <br />-----<br />from http://www.cnes.fr/web/print-4755-the-soyuz-launcher.php <br /><br />The RD-107A may have four nozzles and four combustion chambers, but it is still just one engine as there aren't 4 separate engines that may function independently from each other.

 

[holmec]

Thanks for the info. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>