Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

Terraformer · 2012-05-22 15:50:47

We watched the launch in form this morning on the interactive whiteboard. Quite good, even if a lot of people weren't impressed by the launch.

GW Johnson · 2012-05-22 18:22:09

Mark:

You're right, the Progress collision was MIR not ISS.

GW

SpaceNut · 2012-05-22 19:42:56

News reports of the flight are announcing the mission as a new way to space... now if the price per seat comes down then real space will start....

Impaler · 2012-05-23 00:27:28

Congratulations are in order, the successful launch and if all goes well the successful berthing with the ISS will come at a crucial time. Congressional opponents of the Commercial delivery program at NASA have been slashing away at budget for the program and throwing around references to Solyndra, had this launch failed it would certainly have been hyped into a smear campaign against the Administration in general and the commercial program in particular. If the other developers like Sierra Nevada or Blue Origins ever produce a vehicle it may be in no small part because Space-X's very public success will be protecting the whole program from it's critics.

Rune · 2012-05-24 05:19:28

I'm watching Dragon fly, silhouetted against the ocean, from the comfort of my room. Nice, this internet thing.

Rune. Good to see you up there!

SpaceNut · 2012-05-24 20:21:38

Next up SpaceX Dragon set for rendezvous with station Astronauts onboard the station will try to grab the ship with a robotic arm once it gets within reach.

Rxke · 2012-05-25 07:10:33

Watching the rendezvous live at work, whilst taking 50MP pictures of an old manuscript on the same (bigass dualscreen) computer.

Ain't technology cool? 8)

Rxke · 2012-05-25 07:16:39

Maaaan this is exciting. 30 m hold point reached.

(Though a lot of people will compare this to watching paint dry, I'm afraid... )

Last edited by Rxke (2012-05-25 07:18:29)

Rxke · 2012-05-25 07:23:34

Tense faces, waiting for the go/no go for the advance to the 10 meter holdpoint.

Rxke · 2012-05-25 07:28:19

GO for 10 meter!

Rxke · 2012-05-25 07:33:39

Estimated time to capture point hold 20 minutes.

Rxke · 2012-05-25 07:42:45

15 meters.

Turned on 5 lights on the ISS to help during orbital night.

Rxke · 2012-05-25 07:44:18

12 meters, wow, that was fast!

Rxke · 2012-05-25 07:48:12

Go for capture!

8) 8)

Now it's in the hands of the ISS crew!

Rxke · 2012-05-25 07:55:36

pretty cool to see 'Canada' on the arm

50 cm!!!

Rxke · 2012-05-25 07:56:56

woooohooo!

captured!!!!

'we got a dragon by the tail!'

Rune · 2012-05-25 08:00:40

Rxke wrote:

'we got a dragon by the tail!'

I was just about to post that.

Rune. NOW I can finally have lunch. (16.00 here)

GW Johnson · 2012-05-25 09:34:51

My congratulations to Spacex. A feat very well done. From one old rocket man to the entire Spacex team: you are indeed "steely-eyed missile men" now, for sure.

Automatic launch abort, quick repair, launch, all systems working, automatic flyby, remote guided approach, capture/dock, and cargo delivery. That's more than one "first" for the history books.

All with a re-usable capsule that can carry astronauts. There's more history that will be made.

GW

Rxke · 2012-05-25 10:42:43

Plus... It just went soooo smooth! I'm really, really, really, really, really impressed by this demonstration.

Countless times I thought: 'now they'll get a no-go from NASA,' but noooo, smooth sailing all the way. Incredible.

There must be a DEEP level of trust between SpaceX and NASA (regarding SpaceX's qualities, I mean.)

It was interesting to hear how they communicated too, gotta love live transmissions. There was an air of 'this is new for all of us, but don't sweat it, we ARE going to do this, I'm sure'

8)

louis · 2012-05-25 16:07:12

A stunning achievement when you think Space X has only existed for the last - what? - 8 years...

It's such an important development. Now Space X can really fill its coffers and move into human deployment in space.

Musk is on track to Mars. He is determined to get there and he is about the only man on the planet who has the vision AND the means to get there.

How very, very lucky we are to have him around!

GW Johnson · 2012-05-26 13:52:24

I revisited launch unit cost to LEO with better source data than I had in January, and posted what I computed and plotted in a new article over at http://exrocketman.blogspot.com, dated 5-26-12. Right now, it's top-of-the-heap.

I also drew some very interesting interpretations and conclusions from that data. They have strong bearing on the various proposals for manned (or unmanned) Mars missions I see being discussed here.

Take a look, and let me know what you think, either here or there.

GW

RGClark · 2012-05-26 16:43:18

Congrats to SpaceX.

Bob Clark

louis · 2012-05-26 18:01:51

GW Johnson wrote:

I revisited launch unit cost to LEO with better source data than I had in January, and posted what I computed and plotted in a new article over at http://exrocketman.blogspot.com, dated 5-26-12. Right now, it's top-of-the-heap.
I also drew some very interesting interpretations and conclusions from that data. They have strong bearing on the various proposals for manned (or unmanned) Mars missions I see being discussed here.
Take a look, and let me know what you think, either here or there.
GW

Very useful data GW.

Confirms that Space X have really driven down the cheapest unit cost. At something approaching $2000 per kg, that puts Mars very much in reach, I believe. Using my rough and ready calculator (aka a hunch) if we use a multiplier of x4 to that to account for the additional complexities of flight to Mars, that would give us a cost of approx $8million per tonne.

I think Musk will have enough money in the Space X kitty to undertake the mission independently in a few years' time but I believe for political reasons he will probably make it a co-enterprise with NASA at least. However by then I believe he will be the senior partner.

GW Johnson · 2012-05-27 10:19:32

Glad you liked the data, Louis. I worked hard on that, to make sure it was both usable and reliable.

As soon as there is a reliable lander, I'd bet Musk will scrape up the money and go to Mars, without NASA if he has to. But the lander is the missing tinkertoy in our toybox, as far as Mars is concerned.

Exactly what kind of a lander you build depends in great part upon your basic mission architecture. For first-visit explorations, I just don't see the sanity of sending the Earth return vehicle to the surface of Mars. That's the same weight penalty that almost forced Apollo into a two-launch-one mission architecture. Doing a lander ("lunar orbit rendezvous") made the moon shots do-able as one launch-one mission. That was fortunate, because back then, orbital assembly by docking was beyond our reach. Docking capsule with lander was a stretch, back then.

There are serious difficulties landing things over about half a ton on Mars. Aerobraking is not sufficient because the "air" is just too thin, yet thick enough for significant entry heating. It simply takes rocket braking, and that means propellants and stages if chemical. Yet, it has to be clean aerodynamically, and it has to have a heat shield. It cannot be built flimsy and light, like the Apollo LEM.

Unlike the moon, there's enough gravity on Mars to put a two-stage rocket-braker out of reach with chemical propellants. Three or more stages makes for a very large vehicle with a fixed payload mass and volume. Tiny things like a small sample return we can design, but how big a thing does it take to carry 1-6 men to Mars orbit? That's huge!

I think the lander is the critical design issue. Orbit-to-orbit ships we can build. It's that lander that drives things to distraction. That's the solution we lack.

I suspect you could do it single stage rocket burn descent and ascent with a NERVA-like solid core nuke and LH2. (I'd really like to see a water nuke, but nobody ever built one.) Single stage landers can be made refuellable and reusable. That opens up a whole new slew of mission design possibilities.

The government has a monopoly on things nuclear here in the USA. If ever there was a critical enabling technology needed to send men to Mars, it is a practical Mars lander. Single stage nuke is the practical one, or so it seems to me. So why is NASA screwing around with a gigantic shuttle-derived launch rocket, when a practical lander is what we really desperately need?

I hate how politics has killed what once was a shining example of a government agency.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2012-05-27 10:22:44)

louis · 2012-05-27 15:59:21

GW Johnson wrote:

Glad you liked the data, Louis. I worked hard on that, to make sure it was both usable and reliable.
As soon as there is a reliable lander, I'd bet Musk will scrape up the money and go to Mars, without NASA if he has to. But the lander is the missing tinkertoy in our toybox, as far as Mars is concerned.
Exactly what kind of a lander you build depends in great part upon your basic mission architecture. For first-visit explorations, I just don't see the sanity of sending the Earth return vehicle to the surface of Mars. That's the same weight penalty that almost forced Apollo into a two-launch-one mission architecture. Doing a lander ("lunar orbit rendezvous") made the moon shots do-able as one launch-one mission. That was fortunate, because back then, orbital assembly by docking was beyond our reach. Docking capsule with lander was a stretch, back then.
There are serious difficulties landing things over about half a ton on Mars. Aerobraking is not sufficient because the "air" is just too thin, yet thick enough for significant entry heating. It simply takes rocket braking, and that means propellants and stages if chemical. Yet, it has to be clean aerodynamically, and it has to have a heat shield. It cannot be built flimsy and light, like the Apollo LEM.
Unlike the moon, there's enough gravity on Mars to put a two-stage rocket-braker out of reach with chemical propellants. Three or more stages makes for a very large vehicle with a fixed payload mass and volume. Tiny things like a small sample return we can design, but how big a thing does it take to carry 1-6 men to Mars orbit? That's huge!
I think the lander is the critical design issue. Orbit-to-orbit ships we can build. It's that lander that drives things to distraction. That's the solution we lack.
I suspect you could do it single stage rocket burn descent and ascent with a NERVA-like solid core nuke and LH2. (I'd really like to see a water nuke, but nobody ever built one.) Single stage landers can be made refuellable and reusable. That opens up a whole new slew of mission design possibilities.
The government has a monopoly on things nuclear here in the USA. If ever there was a critical enabling technology needed to send men to Mars, it is a practical Mars lander. Single stage nuke is the practical one, or so it seems to me. So why is NASA screwing around with a gigantic shuttle-derived launch rocket, when a practical lander is what we really desperately need?
I hate how politics has killed what once was a shining example of a government agency.
GW

I agree that it is EDL which is the key technical challenge.

I favour a twin mission - two crews of three. So we more or less replicate everything for the two halves of the transit mission.

Like you I favour orbital assembly to create a viable Mars transit vehicle.

Looking at the problem logically, rather than technically which is beyond me, I think the challenges argue for splitting up the load as much as possible. I am sure with Mars satellites and transponders we could land loads within a reasonable target zone. So let's land most of the supplies robotically.

I guess we a lot will depend on whether cantered retro landing is feasible. I feel if you slow down enough, it can be done. If we make the lander small enough, I think we can do it.

Why do you think a chemical fuel/propellant solution is not viable?

I read that for a launch from surface to LMO the fuel/propellant is just 70% rather than 98% for Earth. I presume you need a similar load to go from LMO to Mars surface.

So for a three tonne lander you'd need 7 tonnes of fuel... and to get back to LMO you'd need another 7 tonnes, so that would make a 33 tonne vehicle - are you saying that is too big? We could pre-land the return fuel, and keep the lander at 10 tonnes.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#326 2012-05-22 15:50:47

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#327 2012-05-22 18:22:09

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#328 2012-05-22 19:42:56

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#329 2012-05-23 00:27:28

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#330 2012-05-24 05:19:28

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#331 2012-05-24 20:21:38

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#332 2012-05-25 07:10:33

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#333 2012-05-25 07:16:39

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#334 2012-05-25 07:23:34

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#335 2012-05-25 07:28:19

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#336 2012-05-25 07:33:39

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#337 2012-05-25 07:42:45

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#338 2012-05-25 07:44:18

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#339 2012-05-25 07:48:12

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#340 2012-05-25 07:55:36

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#341 2012-05-25 07:56:56

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#342 2012-05-25 08:00:40

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#343 2012-05-25 09:34:51

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#344 2012-05-25 10:42:43

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#345 2012-05-25 16:07:12

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#346 2012-05-26 13:52:24

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#347 2012-05-26 16:43:18

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#348 2012-05-26 18:01:51

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#349 2012-05-27 10:19:32

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#350 2012-05-27 15:59:21

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

Board footer