You are not logged in.
SpaceX was recently criticized by the Government Accountability Office for delays in the manned Dragon capsule, and called into question whether the company would be able to meet the late 2018 manned flight requirement. SpaceX COO, Gwynn Shotwell replied: "The Hell we won't."
Offline
That was the Preliminary GAO report calls commercial crew vehicles into question as reported cracks in the turbopump blades of the Merlin engine, among other faults.
NASA considers these types of cracks to be major threats to Falcon 9’s safety and that the blades might need to be redesigned before the agency allows astronauts to ride on the rocket. The agency considers the turbopump blades, which direct propellants toward the Merlin combustion chamber, as presenting an unacceptable risk for crewed flights.
The Journal reported a SpaceX spokesman as saying, “We have qualified our engines to be robust” to these types of cracks but are “modifying the design to avoid them altogether.” The pending changes “will be part of the final design” for the Falcon 9. He added that SpaceX is working “in partnership with NASA to qualify engines for manned spaceflight.”
In addition to the turbopump blades, the Journal reported that GAO has cited SpaceX’s frequent modifications of Falcon 9 designs as a potential source of delays in obtaining NASA certification for the vehicle.
I think the first is a drop and play after redesign and testing but the last issue is about being able to stabilize the rockets production from future changes that are not fully tested. I am not seeing these are show stoppers.
Online
Not sure what the solution to the turbopump crack problem is, except to fly a new one every time. Turbopumps are THE short life component on any liquid rocket engine. They're also the most expensive component. And the one that guarantees disaster when they fail. Best not to "push it". Simple as that.
Spacex has put off Red Dragon to make both crew Dragon and Falcon-Heavy happen first. Some time earlier, they had already made the first stage cores for Falcon-9 and Falcon-Heavy the same, so that the development and verification testing at McGregor applies to both. Last I heard, they will not test an all-up 27-engine -Heavy first stage at McGregor, just the 9-engine cores individually.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-03-02 12:18:22)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Congrats to Spacex on 3-16-17 successful launch of Echostar 23 to GTO.
Not a recovery-type flight. No landing legs.
Next launch ~ 27th with a re-used 1st stage, supposedly.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I've now read elsewhere that Falcon Heavy is now only being delayed by the repairs to the damage incurred at the launch pad from the September 1st "anomaly." Spacex has very ambitious launch manifesto this year, and cannot risk another pad shutdown, should Falcon Heavy have a launch problem. LC 39a is needed for Falcon Heavy but that won't be happening until LC 40 is again operational for Falcon 9 Full Thrust rocket launches.
Offline
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … today.html
Looks like we are all systems go again with Space X...
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Success!
The Former Commodore
Offline
Just looked at the video record on Spacex's website. Looks to me like some VERY serious congratulations are due! Successful launch, successful re-flight of used first stage booster in an orbital-class vehicle, successful second (!) landing of that booster on their drone ship, successful achievement of GTO orbit, successful payload deployment. Very, very good day!!!
I hope they get pad 40 back up and running for Falcon-9, so they can start flying Falcon-Heavy off of pad 39A.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Truly looks like the beginning of a new era in space exploration! Well done to all at Space X.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Musk to Test New Rocket in Late Summer Ahead of Tourist Mission
“Falcon Heavy will be able to carry heavy payloads for customers like the Pentagon, but it’s also important for the long-term goal of pushing further into the solar system,” said Phil Larson, a space policy adviser to Barack Obama who worked for SpaceX and is now at the University of Colorado Boulder. “Falcon 9 can send the Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station, but Falcon Heavy can send Red Dragon all the way to Mars.”
Online
He's not done with "reflight"...
Elon Musk’s SpaceX on Thursday salvaged half of the $6 million nosecone of its rocket, in what the space entrepreneur deemed an important feat in the drive to recover more of its launch hardware and cut the cost of space flights. This was part of the successful relaunch and landing of the first stage.
Shortly after the main section of SpaceX’s first recycled Falcon 9 booster landed itself on a platform in the ocean, half of the rocket’s nosecone, which protected a communications satellite during launch, splashed down via parachute nearby.
"That was the cherry on the cake,” Musk, who serves as chief executive and lead designer of Space Exploration Technologies, told reporters after launch from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
...
The Falcon Heavy launch is planned for the late summer. They will try to land all three first stages, the maybe second stage and the payload faring.Elon Musk aspires to relaunch with zero hardware changes and have reflight in 24 hours. The only thing that changes is Spacex reloads propellant. SpaceX could reach the zero hardware change point within 12 months.
They estimate that with only refueling and a quick inspection between launches, a Falcon 9 could be flown about 10 times. With some refurbishment between launches, it could see 100 launches or more.
Elon Musk wrote:Considering trying to bring upper stage back on Falcon Heavy demo flight for full reusability. Odds of success low, but maybe worth a shot.
The rocket's grid fins, which help stabilize and control direction during descent, see some of the heaviest damage. Spacex is working on a new design and titanium-based alloy that will better stand up to the stresses of reentry.
The faring recovery effort was news to me. And I thought that the 2nd stage recovery was largely forgotten. It's nice to see that it is still an objective, even though it will probably take a lot more work to make it happen.
Elon is not content to win the Space Race, he is twisting the knife.
Last edited by Excelsior (2017-04-01 12:43:00)
The Former Commodore
Offline
Both the flairing and the second stage have seen the orbital condition for atmospheric entry and will require heat shielding to be provide, more fuel to be reserved for retro propulsion, also the flairing once its seperates via splitting will need seperate edl systems to bring them home. All these add up to less payloads to orbit and beyond.....
Online
Musk has to fly Falcon-Heavy multiple times before he risks a lunar crewed Dragon flight, because Falcon-9 cannot take Dragon beyond Earth orbit. It'll take more than one flight to "prove" the bigger rocket is safe enough. We can always argue about how many successful flights it takes to "prove" safety.
Musk needs to fly crewed Dragon more than once before he risks paying passengers in it. I suppose that his NASA test flights with it might still begin this year, although NASA is dragging their feet, because Boeing isn't ready. Actually, those flights could have started late last year. But Spacex's contract precludes jumping the gun, which would embarrass both NASA and Boeing. It's expensive enough doing this work that Musk wants to get paid for it. Perfectly understandable.
Once both Falcon-Heavy and crew Dragon are "proven" safe, then the paying tourists will fly around the moon. Makes no sense to attempt doing this out of order.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
According to the published launch manifests on Spaceflightinsider.com, there are at least 2 Falcon Heavy flights scheduled this year, along with the Crew Dragon demonstration flight; that's in addition to the Crew Dragon launch abort demonstration. There have been rumors circulated on many of these space sites, hinting the use of previously flown first stages as boosters for Falcon Heavy. This should be giving the management at Boeing and Lockheed-Martin ulcers!
P.S. NASA and ULA both need some embarrassment; it's good for their collective souls. A dose of entrepreneurial reality!
Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-04-02 18:21:13)
Offline
Competition is a great spur to action!
Offline
According to the launch manifests published on both SpaceflightInsider.com, and also on Spaceflight101.com, the crew Dragon launch abort test is going to occur in late July, in addition to the Falcon Heavy demonstration flight. There's also a second, payload carrying Falcon Heavy flight, scheduled in November. The crew Dragon demonstration flight is also scheduled in late year. If only 2 of these 4 missions are carried out, it would mark enormous progress towards the circumlunar ballistic free return flight with paying passengers in 2018.
Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-04-04 14:16:38)
Offline
Space X has just updated the data about the Falcon Heavy here: http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy . The payload numbers have been increased almost 20%!
Payload to LEO: 63,800 kg
Payload to GTO: 26,700 kg
Payload to Mars: 16,800 kg
Payload to Pluto: 3,500 kg
This means that two Falcon Heavies have about the same payload (127.6 tonnes) as the Saturn V (118 tonnes originally, 140 tonnes eventually). Mars Direct was designed based on a 140 tonne to LEO rocket able to throw 40-46 tonnes to TMI (depending on the delta-v needed). So the Falcon Heavy is getting rather close to those numbers, and of course it is a LOT cheaper; at 90 million per launch ($180 million for two), it can put almost as much into LEO as a Saturn V, whose launch in today's dollars would be over a billion dollars. I would not be at all surprised that a few tweaks (a larger second stage, for example) wouldn't push a Falcon Heavy's payload up to 70 tonnes. That's only another 6%!
Last edited by RobS (2017-04-10 22:18:44)
Offline
And if you use the lower stage twice, this reduces costs further.
Offline
In terms of overall cost, we can now see launch costs are becoming almost insignificant for a mission that will easily cost billions - probably well over $10 billion. Incidentally that $180 million for two launches could easily be cover by a sponsor like Coca Cola. That would provide just the sort of publicity they would want.
What generates cost is development (on which probably 10,000s of well paid people will need to work over 10 years). There will be much bigger costs associated with developing the transit vehicle, life support,energy systems, space suits, habs, robots, rovers and so on. But I expect Space X can do all that much more cheaply than the unfocussed NASA.
Of course the great thing about the Falcon Heavy is it will have multiple revenue-generating uses: satellite launches, lunar tourism, ISS support and NASA projects elsewhere in the solar system. So the development costs are being spread out over a number of areas.
Exciting times!
Space X has just updated the data about the Falcon Heavy here: http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy . The payload numbers have been increased almost 20%!
Payload to LEO: 63,800 kg
Payload to GTO: 26,700 kg
Payload to Mars: 16,800 kg
Payload to Pluto: 3,500 kgThis means that two Falcon Heavies have about the same payload (127.6 tonnes) as the Saturn V (118 tonnes originally, 140 tonnes eventually). Mars Direct was designed based on a 140 tonne to LEO rocket able to throw 40-46 tonnes to TMI (depending on the delta-v needed). So the Falcon Heavy is getting rather close to those numbers, and of course it is a LOT cheaper; at 90 million per launch ($180 million for two), it can put almost as much into LEO as a Saturn V, whose launch in today's dollars would be over a billion dollars. I would not be at all surprised that a few tweaks (a larger second stage, for example) wouldn't push a Falcon Heavy's payload up to 70 tonnes. That's only another 6%!
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
as the Saturn V (118 tonnes originally, 140 tonnes eventually).
Oh? Where did that come from?
Astronautix: Saturn C-5 at the time it was selected to launch astronauts to the Moon. 120 metric tonnes to LEO (185km orbit @ 28° inclination)
Saturn C-5 as defined later (see table): 127 metric tonnes to LEO, 45 metric tonnes to translunar trajectory (to the Moon)
Saturn V as flown: 118 metric tonnes to LEO, 47 metric tonnes to translunar trajectory
Saturn INT-21 used to launch Skylab. First 2 stages only, although Instrument Union on top of Skylab, formal definition would relocate Instrument Unit to top of second stage. 115.9 metric tonnes to LEO.
What do you mean by "140 tonnes eventually"?
Offline
Space X has just updated the data about the Falcon Heavy here: http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy . The payload numbers have been increased almost 20%!
Payload to LEO: 63,800 kg
Payload to GTO: 26,700 kg
Payload to Mars: 16,800 kg
Payload to Pluto: 3,500 kgThis means that two Falcon Heavies have about the same payload (127.6 tonnes) as the Saturn V (118 tonnes originally, 140 tonnes eventually). Mars Direct was designed based on a 140 tonne to LEO rocket able to throw 40-46 tonnes to TMI (depending on the delta-v needed). So the Falcon Heavy is getting rather close to those numbers, and of course it is a LOT cheaper; at 90 million per launch ($180 million for two), it can put almost as much into LEO as a Saturn V, whose launch in today's dollars would be over a billion dollars. I would not be at all surprised that a few tweaks (a larger second stage, for example) wouldn't push a Falcon Heavy's payload up to 70 tonnes. That's only another 6%!
Yes, this will make the SLS even more problematical since two launches of the FH can equal or surpass the payload of the final, proposed version of the SLS, at a fraction of the price.
Note also that with cross-feed fueling the FH could match the cited 70 metric ton (mT) payload of the first version of the SLS. (Actually many people think this first version of the SLS will have a payload capability closer to 90 mT.)
Bob Clark
Old Space rule of acquisition (with a nod to Star Trek - the Next Generation):
“Anything worth doing is worth doing for a billion dollars.”
Offline
When one looks at the possible "tweaks" for the 2nd stage, simply changing fuel from RP-1 to Aerozine 50 would give an improvement through higher vacuum Isp. The engine modification shouldn't be too major, probably mostly in the turbopump pumping rates. Possibly just a flow control issue solved by a reprogram of the controllers? The Id is slightly better as well.
Musk stated that the problem of hooking 3 first stages together and flying it is not as simple as they first thought, and a lot of modifications had to be made to the central core unit (I'm guessing structural improvements to handle increased loads from the 2 boosters).
I just now checked the fuel performance tables previously posted here;
A change of fuel from RP-1 to Aerozine 50 or MMH would result in a 2% performance increase in the second stage; using N2H4 is more energetic but also somewhat more hazardous: it would, however, yield a 9.2% performance increase.
Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-04-11 08:37:09)
Offline
Bob-
IMHO, SpaceX should consider building a new and larger central core for the Falcon Heavy, maybe a Falcon "Super Heavy." Designed from the outset for 4 strap-on recovered Falcon 9 first stages, and thus making the core the operational second stage through cross feed fueling as you suggest. Lets just brainstorm a 5 meter diameter central core and 4 strap-on Falcon 9s? This system would make the concept of the SLS entirely redundant and probably equal or exceed the Saturn V in performance to LEO.
Offline
Aren't they already having structural issues trying to transmit the thrust from the two boosters plus first stage that make up the Falcon Heavy, Oldfart?
Offline
I am assuming that its due to not being made for them in the first place. Maybe they can learn from Boeings tripple barrel rocket the Delta IV heavy as these are made simular to what Space X is proposing to do with the Falcon.....
This is also the reason for looking at a clean design for the parts to be made from and designing the feature in from the start as was the legs.
I also agree that they should be looking at a different fueled second stage as well....
Online