Space X are go!

louis · 2012-10-08 02:10:44

So Space X have successfully launched the first real business flight. Now the big money starts rolling in and Space X will be in a position to fund a number of developments including I believe lunar tourism and the first manned flight to Mars.

The only thing possibly holding them back will be the relationship with NASA. But as Space X get bigger so the dynamics of the relationship will change. NASA will increasingly rely on Space X's good will.

"Cape Canaveral, FL -- Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) today successfully launched its Dragon spacecraft aboard a Falcon 9 rocket on the first official cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station. The launch went off on schedule at 8:35 p.m. ET from Launch Complex 40 in Cape Canaveral, Florida.

The SpaceX CRS-1 mission marks the first of at least 12 SpaceX missions to the space station under the company's cargo resupply contract with NASA. On board the Dragon spacecraft are materials to support investigations planned for the station's Expedition 33 crew, as well as crew supplies and space station hardware.

Dragon -- the only space station cargo craft capable of returning a significant amount of supplies back to Earth -- will return with scientific materials and space station hardware.

Dragon will now chase the space station before beginning a series of burns that will bring it into close proximity to the station. If all goes well, Dragon will attach to the complex on October 10 and spend over two weeks there before an expected return to Earth on October 28.

"We are right where we need to be at this stage in the mission," said Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Technical Officer, SpaceX. "We still have a lot of work to do, of course, as we guide Dragon's approach to the space station. But the launch was an unqualified success."

The CRS-1 mission follows a historic demonstration flight last May when SpaceX's Dragon became the first commercial spacecraft to attach to the space station, exchange cargo, and return safely to Earth. The flight signaled restoration of American capability to resupply the space station, not possible since the retirement of the space shuttle in 2011."

Glandu · 2012-10-08 07:21:29

That's good, but that's also far from the budget needed to go to Mars.

Decimator · 2012-10-08 08:31:01

Glandu wrote:

That's good, but that's also far from the budget needed to go to Mars.

Baby steps, Glandu. We need a self-sustaining space economy if we want more than flags and footprints on Mars.

louis · 2012-10-08 12:27:11

Glandu wrote:

That's good, but that's also far from the budget needed to go to Mars.

Says who?

Space X's income is already well over $100 million per annum. I see no reason why they won't be in the $500million to $1billion range soon given their ability to offer competitive prices for satellite launches.

Let's assume a profit on that of $50-$100 million. You can use that to service loans of maybe $1-$2.5billion. Add to that some of Elon Musk's personal wealth ($2.4billion) and the fact that a first mission to Mars would attract huge sponsorship.

It seems to me that there is enough money there to get the Mars mission going. Once lunar tourism kicks in, Space X's earnings will expand hugely and they will be able to finance the Mars mission on their own.

Koeng · 2012-10-08 17:13:10

I totally agree. I think that mars is a step away, but once people start touring the moon, all that will change.

Having that said, Most companies are still in LEO. (Virgin Galatic). I believe that only spaceX's technology could get us to the moon. Anyway, I will support spaces whatever they do

-Koeng

louis · 2012-10-08 18:49:24

Incidentally, they had an engine out on the way up, but the craft oeprated as designed and was not thrown off course by the engine failure. They are looking into that.

Space X really seem on top of their game.

I'd love to see a business model that went:

NASA work

Dominate satellite launches

Work with Virgin Galactic to develop lunar tourism

Establish human presence on Mars, working through a Mars Consortium including NASA, ESA and some other bodies.

GW Johnson · 2012-10-13 08:36:26

I was very pleased to see a successful Dragon flight in spite of an engine out. In the absence of details, I do not understand the NASA safety rule forbidding second stage restart after a first stage problem. That caused the loss of the piggyback Orbcomm satellite, not anything to do with the Falcon-9. Bureaucracies, bah, humbug! That's why Spacex is looking for its own launch site. I hope they pick south Texas.

On the other hand, Spacex will have to get to the bottom of the engine out, even if NASA were not breathing down their neck. Something leaked somewhere upstream of the throat, that's how you get a pressure drop. Leaks get catastrophic in a tiny fraction of a second, that's why you need an automatic way to detect them and shut down, at way-faster-than-human speed. Looks like the controls on the Falcon-9 do exactly that. Bravo and kudos to Spacex for getting the safety/failsafe things right!

Leaks ahead of the throat show more pressure loss than thrust loss, at least initially on the transient while the hole is still small. Leaks downstream of the throat will show as thrust loss with no chamber pressure loss at all. You'll have to be monitoring thrust, as well as pressure, to detect leaks in the bell downstream of the throat. I would hope they know to do that. I would guess they are doing it, based on how well they have done the rest.

Leaks in either place cause errant hot gas plumes and shedding debris that very quickly damage adjacent engines or other structures. You have to worry about both phenomena.

BTW, what I said about engine and nozzle leaks applies to all rockets, not just liquids. Solids and hybrids, too.

GW

louis · 2012-10-13 09:22:52

GW Johnson wrote:

I was very pleased to see a successful Dragon flight in spite of an engine out. In the absence of details, I do not understand the NASA safety rule forbidding second stage restart after a first stage problem. That caused the loss of the piggyback Orbcomm satellite, not anything to do with the Falcon-9. Bureaucracies, bah, humbug! That's why Spacex is looking for its own launch site. I hope they pick south Texas.
On the other hand, Spacex will have to get to the bottom of the engine out, even if NASA were not breathing down their neck. Something leaked somewhere upstream of the throat, that's how you get a pressure drop. Leaks get catastrophic in a tiny fraction of a second, that's why you need an automatic way to detect them and shut down, at way-faster-than-human speed. Looks like the controls on the Falcon-9 do exactly that. Bravo and kudos to Spacex for getting the safety/failsafe things right!
Leaks ahead of the throat show more pressure loss than thrust loss, at least initially on the transient while the hole is still small. Leaks downstream of the throat will show as thrust loss with no chamber pressure loss at all. You'll have to be monitoring thrust, as well as pressure, to detect leaks in the bell downstream of the throat. I would hope they know to do that. I would guess they are doing it, based on how well they have done the rest.
Leaks in either place cause errant hot gas plumes and shedding debris that very quickly damage adjacent engines or other structures. You have to worry about both phenomena.
BTW, what I said about engine and nozzle leaks applies to all rockets, not just liquids. Solids and hybrids, too.
GW

Thanks for the technical clarifications - v. useful!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2012-10-08 02:10:44

Space X are go!

#2 2012-10-08 07:21:29

Re: Space X are go!

#3 2012-10-08 08:31:01

Re: Space X are go!

#4 2012-10-08 12:27:11

Re: Space X are go!

#5 2012-10-08 17:13:10

Re: Space X are go!

#6 2012-10-08 18:49:24

Re: Space X are go!

#7 2012-10-13 08:36:26

Re: Space X are go!

#8 2012-10-13 09:22:52

Re: Space X are go!

Board footer