Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

RobertDyck · 2016-04-09 11:22:58

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

SpaceX simply recognizes the fact that single-stage to orbit is not worth pursuing, and has instead pursued multiple reusable stages to orbit instead, We have spent billions on trying to achieve the former, and the former is not really achievable with chemical rockets, and we are unwilling to go nuclear!

We could do it with Timberwind. That was ground launch solid core nuclear thermal. They developed an upper stage, and I keep comparing the Timberwind upper stage to NERVA, but primary development was replacement for Titan. Nuclear activists got it cancelled.

But I would not say SSTO is not worth it. VentureStar would have worked. It pushed the edge of the envelope, but all spacecraft do. SpaceX chose to take an approach of reliable and inexpensive, then build on that. RP1/LOX is low performance, but cheap. It was used by the first stage of Saturn V and Atlas V. VentureStar reduced weight with all composite propellant tanks, and extensive use of composites throughout. Corporate executives tried to gouge NASA in the usual way, but deliberately creating cost overruns, but NASA added a clause to the contract that said the contractor had to share the cost. Lockheed-Martin refused to comply with the contract they signed. Work halted for years while lawyers argued. They did propose going back to aluminum alloy, and not even aluminum-lithium like the Shuttle ET, they wanted the same aluminum alloy as the 1960s. The result was so heavy it couldn't launch. But if they stuck with the original design, it would have worked.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-09 16:59:15

Government does a lousy job of making space affordable for everyone. We're approaching the 60th anniversary of the Space Age next year, and what have we got to show for it?

SpaceNut · 2016-04-09 18:22:57

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

SpaceNut wrote:
I am glad that they got this right but from now on they need perfect launches from the recycled first stage and perfect landings each time or we can all say we told you so.....
Even air travel isn't perfect, yet millions of passengers fly each year! What we can do is launch cargo with recycled stages and launch people with new stages, the cargo being what is used to sustain humans in space, that alone will make space travel cheaper. If a recycled stage fails, then the cargo is lost, no big deal, the insurance company reimburses for the loss of the cargo, we get more cargo and we try again. For human travel, we use brand new reusable stages until will build up confidence in them to trust human lives on recycled stages. Does that seem fair to you? The cost of the trip will still be less, because the cost of the stages used to life the humans will be paid off over all the subsequent cargo trips the stages will be used for after they launch humans. The humans don't have to pay for the entire cost of building those stages with their trip into space!

I do agree that having cargo go on the used stage and crew going on the fresh new stage is the best chance for continued success....

Now what would it take to put the seria nevada Dream chaser on the top of the stages and make it completely reuseable....Currently its slated to go on the Atlas V but even that could have changed or will change at some point in time.......

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Government does a lousy job of making space affordable for everyone. We're approaching the 60th anniversary of the Space Age next year, and what have we got to show for it?

currently a borderline competition for pricing of launch for cargo but hopefully that will carry over into crewed flight as well...

louis · 2016-04-10 14:39:26

If a plane can fly 10,000 times, I think a first stage can fly 10 times, and maybe 100 times. Perfection takes some time to perfect but I think they are well on the way.

GW Johnson wrote:

Spacenut, it's too early to hold them to such a standard. Let them do it a few times, and still fail some of them, before you start judging. By your standard, we would have given up airplanes by the time of the Wright flyer crash that killed Lt. Selfridge. Which was before WW1. Not WW2; the Great War, WW1 ! 1909 I think it was.
GW

louis · 2016-04-10 14:52:11

Compared with 50 years ago there are now many more super-rich people on Planet Earth who can afford to pay say $500,000 for a once in a lifetime trip to the moon with a 3 day stay in a lunar hotel, incorporating Rover trip to the Apollo 11 site. I think we must be getting close to a situation where such trips become viable - cheap flights to orbit in maybe a 20 person craft ; reusable transfer to the moon; 5 person lunar landers. Maybe initially the ticket price will be higher, in the 2 million dollar range.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

louis wrote:
Brilliant news! Congrats to everyone at Space X for this marvellous achievement. The era of cheap space travel beckons... Can lunar hotels be far behind? I don't think so.
Why not? If you can pay the cost of rockets over multiple trips instead of just one, then that makes space tourism achievable. Do you think rocket fuel is the primary cost of space travel? The thing that's holding us back is the cost of Space Travel. NASA really hasn't addressed to cost of getting into orbit for several decades! the main stumbling block is we haven't got a vehicle that can reach orbit in a single stage, then land and be used again. SpaceX simply recognizes the fact that single-stage to orbit is not worth pursuing, and has instead pursued multiple reusable stages to orbit instead, We have spent billions on trying to achieve the former, and the former is not really achievable with chemical rockets, and we are unwilling to go nuclear!

SpaceNut · 2016-04-10 15:26:25

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

I think SpaceX went the multi-stage route, because it would have been easier to do. VentureStar required some extreme engineering to make it work, and required the participation of the US government. If it were obvious that it would lead to a single stage vehicle, a private company could raise the funds for it, and it would be profitable to launch, instead of requiring a continuous government subsidy as the shuttle has. It is probably cheaper to make the bottom stage of a rocket reusable, rather than trying to build an entire single stage to orbit vehicle in one fell swoop! Anyway, if you have a four stage rocket with four reusable stages, you have four reusable vehicles that stack on top of one another. Each stage need not be as delicate or as fragile as a single stage to orbit reusable vehicle. You don't have to economize on weight as much, and you can design it for multiple configurations and payloads, using 3 stages for smaller payloads and maybe 5 stages for the larger ones.

With each stage requiring the protection and or compensation for re-entry it will have a mass penaly for each that is used that translate back towards the first stage not having the performance to boost the next stage to the correct location. In order to keep the payload that is wanted the stage proceeding it and the next so on down towards the first must have a boost in performance and mass moving capability.

Not to get to far adrift of topic but here is the links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_re … nt_program
http://aviationweek.com/blog/nasa-cnes- … n-9-rocket

In theory, the SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 booster can be reused more than three-dozen times.
That's because the rocket's LOX/Kerosene Merlin 1D engine -- nine of which power its first stage -- has a cycle of 40, but “We don't know how many times we can fly the first stage.
Falcon 9 is already the lowest-cost rocket on the commercial market today. Able to throw 4,850 kg of payload to supersynchronous transfer orbit at roughly $60 million per launch, it bests even the Chinese Long March 3B at $70 million a pop.
Noting that the cost of fuel, oxygen and other expendable liquids in the rocket amounts to just 0.3% of the cost of a Falcon 9 mission.
One of the most challenging aspects of reusability, he said, is the weight penalty added by hardware and propellant. He says the latter means reserving 30% of first-stage fuel in order to return a booster to the launch site.
“You end up designing much larger vehicles, with landing gear, with legs or wings, so it's heavier and you need more propulsion, at least 25-30% more propulsion on the stage,”

second stage reuse plans
http://space.stackexchange.com/question … cond-stage

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/r … s-6653023/

The key, at least for the first stage, is the difference in speed. "It really comes down to what the staging Mach number would be," Musk says, referencing the speed the rocket would be traveling at separation. "For an expendable Falcon 9 rocket, that is around Mach 10. For a reusable Falcon 9, it is around Mach 6, depending on the mission." For the reusable version, the rocket must be traveling at a slower speed at separation because the burn must end early, preserving enough propellant to let the rocket fly back and land vertically. This also makes recovery easier because entry velocities are slower. "The payload penalty for full and fast reusability versus an expendable version is roughly 40 percent," Musk says. "[But] propellant cost is less than 0.4 percent of the total flight cost.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-10 15:27:59

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

So the solution is to make the stages 40% larger so you can preserve the payload lift capability, this might make the stages cost 40% more to build, but then if you use it twice, you would have to build a booster that is 100% larger to lift the same amount of payload in one launch that launching two successive launches with the same rocket would accomplish. 40% vs 100%. I think 40% is better.

The mass penalty is different for each stage... take any capsule in orbit what you add to bring it back down is a heatshield, parachutes and fuel for the deburn...but a third stage does not normally have these and because that stage is larger so will be the parachute plus heatshield and protection system for the stages sides then the fuel for orbital deburn if it is brought that far before releasing the payload... but here is the twist when it comes to the landing the fuel is not the same as for the first stage as the speed is different for the land based or floating platform of a third stage. The second stage would function much like the third stage and the mass penalty would be even higher to make it still for recoverability....

So once we look at the totals it might be better to go with a single stage to reduce the penalties but then again if its cost rise to a point that its cheaper to buy a regular rocket what would be the point of reusuability since the important one is cost per flight....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-10 21:25:28

NASA has been trying to build an SSTO for a very long time! I think we should aim for a more achievable goal, such as making the bottom stage reusable, rather than create the miracle "all-in-one" spacecraft that "slices and dices". I remember the Shuttle Program, how it was supposed to revolutionize space travel, and it didn't. I remember seeing the James Bond film Moonraker, remember Drax? How the villain had a whole fleet of Moonraker shuttles, building a secret space station in low Earth orbit, with a cloaking device making it invisible to all Earth radars?
th?&id=OIP.M867a6a07a22c9646e56a8e9b2e993a6co0&w=180&h=299&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0
The Moonraker shuttle was based on the shuttle NASA was trying to build at that time.
th?&id=OIP.M1cd68cb164516f471b82c11e77ce0154o0&w=300&h=133&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0
But the ideas being portrayed in that movie, namely what the shuttle was capable of doing were all wrong! For instance the above picture is the space station in the Movie that was built by Drax, it was a kind or orbital Noah's Ark, for the villain's sinister plan to wipe out the human race on Earth, and repopulate it with the people on the space station. We could do a whole thread on all the things the movie Moonraker got wrong about the shuttle.

For one thing, shuttles don't dock that way. That door on the side is how astronauts get out of the shuttle once it lands, it is not a docking port. The shuttle has to open its cargo bay doors and use a docking adapter within in order to dock with anything in space, that is the first thing the movie got wrong about the shuttle, as you can see.

Another thing, the space station rotated for gravity, but it doesn't look like it was designed to rotate, and way those shuttles would not be able to stay docked to those pods, if the station did rotate!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-04-10 21:29:33)

Excelsior · 2016-05-05 23:34:04

The JCSAT-14 first stage just successfully landed on "Of Course I Still Love You" from a Geostationary trajectory! At night! Just as their commentators where saying that they weren't expecting to get the stage back from such a fast trajectory!

13177427_10157404729395131_8248276146563776059_n.png?oh=10c0987b62b07054c9b97c71f2792a04&oe=57B709E2

Oh yeah, and they also successfully delivered the payload to it's intended orbit.

Last edited by Excelsior (2016-05-05 23:58:10)

louis · 2016-05-06 04:10:30

A brilliant achievement! Space X are now realising their full potential and knocking spots off the opposition.

Looks like they are on a swift trajectory to early Mars colonisation - mid 2020s - with the first landing of a Space X craft on Mars in 2018.

We have some very exciting times coming up! Wouldn't we all love to see Musk's detailed plans for Colony One!

SpaceNut · 2016-05-06 20:51:37

Congrats for sure....keep it up....

Excelsior · 2016-05-27 15:49:28

Score number four!

Last edited by Excelsior (2016-05-27 20:23:45)

GW Johnson · 2016-05-28 10:18:56

Congrats to Spacex, yet again!

GW

SpaceNut · 2016-05-31 19:48:27

keep em rolling
show the costs in the media for re-use
make the people believe....

SpaceNut · 2016-06-17 20:09:06

See how close SpaceX came to landing its latest rocket
So close to four in a row.......
It was SpaceX's eighth attempted sea landing, and the fifth time that the rocket didn't survive.

Looks like early liquid oxygen depletion caused engine shutdown just above the deck pic.twitter.com/Sa6uCkpknY

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 17, 2016

SpaceNut · 2016-06-26 22:24:39

How Does SpaceX Make Money?

Build cheaper than anyone else. Price cheaper than anyone else. Lather, rinse, and repeat until the (presumed) IPO.

GW Johnson · 2016-07-18 08:16:34

Congrats to Spacex yet again. Today's mission to send stuff to ISS (including the docking adapters for Dragon and Starliner) was successful, including landing the booster at the cape.

GW

GW Johnson · 2016-08-14 11:48:01

And yet again today. Successful satellite launch and barge landing of first stage.

GW

GW Johnson · 2016-09-01 08:38:55

Sept 1 9:30 AM CDT: oops!

According to online CBS news, a Spacex rocket exploded during a routine test firing ahead of a planned Saturday satellite launch. The report indicated a sudden explosion, followed by fire and other explosions. It indicated damage to the facility. No other details yet.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-09-01 08:39:25)

Excelsior · 2016-09-01 09:34:49

Reports seem to indicate a pad issue, and not a vehicle issue. Other than the vehicle and payload where lost. No injuries, but there is significant damage to the pad.

If vehicle issues can be ruled out, then in theory they could shift the launch schedule to 39A without a huge delay.

RobertDyck · 2016-09-01 12:00:30

YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=144
SpaceFlightInsider: SpaceX Falcon 9 with Amos 6 explodes at SLC-40

SpaceX encountered a serious anomaly during the static test fire of the Falcon 9 rocket tasked with carrying the Amos-6 satellite. According to the 45th Space Wing, the accident occurred at 9:07 a.m. EDT (13:07 GMT) with images of billowing black smoke and flames appearing on social media outlets such as Twitter.
...
“SpaceX can confirm that in preparation for today’s static fire, there was an anomaly on the pad resulting in the loss of the vehicle and its payload. Per standard procedure, the pad was clear and there were no injuries.”
...
Images from SLC-40 show that the “strongback”, the structure that supports the Falcon 9 until just prior to launch was severely damaged during the explosion.

LA Times: SpaceX explosion did not involve a reused Falcon 9 rocket

RobertDyck · 2016-09-01 12:20:50

Direct from SpaceX, on their Facebook page:
14202614_10157902386770131_3949230701405244459_n.png?oh=aa0edb0d3dad9c93a76a0132851c650f&oe=584E9977

GW Johnson · 2016-09-01 14:31:31

This is off Spacex’s website as of 9-1-16 at 3:25 PM CDT:
--------------------
Below are updates regarding the anomaly that occurred in preparation for the AMOS-6 mission:
September 1, 1:28pm EDT

At approximately 9:07 am ET, during a standard pre-launch static fire test for the AMOS-6 mission, there was an anomaly at SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 40 resulting in loss of the vehicle.

The anomaly originated around the upper stage oxygen tank and occurred during propellant loading of the vehicle. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad and there were no injuries.

We are continuing to review the data to identify the root cause. Additional updates will be provided as they become available.”
September 1, 10:22am EDT

SpaceX can confirm that in preparation for today's static fire, there was an anomaly on the pad resulting in the loss of the vehicle and its payload. Per standard procedure, the pad was clear and there were no injuries.
------------------------
So, we know very, very little. But, by inference, the engines were not running during a propellant loading operation. If true, this is more of a LOX handling incident than anything else.

GW

Excelsior · 2016-09-01 14:47:11

Some media outlets are reporting the "anomaly" originated in the second stage O2 tank, and some say around the O2 tank.

RobertDyck · 2016-09-01 16:39:02

Is SpaceX now using RP1 densification by chilling it? The reason I ask is whether there's RP1 boil-off. Could there have been Kerosene vapour and concentrated oxygen from LOX boil-off around the upper stage at the same time? If so, sounds like a fuel-air explosive waiting for an ignition source.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2016-04-09 11:22:58

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#27 2016-04-09 16:59:15

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#28 2016-04-09 18:22:57

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#29 2016-04-10 14:39:26

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#30 2016-04-10 14:52:11

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#31 2016-04-10 15:26:25

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#32 2016-04-10 15:27:59

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#33 2016-04-10 21:25:28

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#34 2016-05-05 23:34:04

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#35 2016-05-06 04:10:30

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#36 2016-05-06 20:51:37

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#37 2016-05-27 15:49:28

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#38 2016-05-28 10:18:56

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#39 2016-05-31 19:48:27

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#40 2016-06-17 20:09:06

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#41 2016-06-26 22:24:39

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#42 2016-07-18 08:16:34

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#43 2016-08-14 11:48:01

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#44 2016-09-01 08:38:55

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#45 2016-09-01 09:34:49

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#46 2016-09-01 12:00:30

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#47 2016-09-01 12:20:50

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#48 2016-09-01 14:31:31

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#49 2016-09-01 14:47:11

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

#50 2016-09-01 16:39:02

Re: Space X - If at first you don't succeed...

Board footer