Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

Ad Astra · 2003-12-09 23:29:37

I'm really excited about the Falcon I and Falcon V launchers. If Elon Musk's boasts prove themselves to be true, we will have a halfway reusable rocket that dramatically reduces the cost of accessing space. Developed in 18 months for a very small development cost, the Falcon I may bury the Pegasus and Taurus launchers.

Fast forward a few years, and SpaceX may build the Falcon V--using a five-engine first stage with the two stages of Falcon I on top. This rocket is far cheaper than the comparable Delta II. It also sends a message to LockMart and Boeing about how to build a launcher--put multiple engines on the same stage to guard against an engine failure. Perhaps the solution to our HLLV needs is the same approach taken towards a Delta IV or Atlas V.

Rxke · 2003-12-10 02:33:18

Wait... There's even better news, Musk said he thinks about *manned* flight on the Falcon V, within five years ...

(I'll see what i can find, back in a sec.)

Rxke · 2003-12-10 02:44:25

Got one link... Wired

Note that they actually plan to have a Falcon V ready by 2005! that's again amazingly fast...

Some more info on Falcon I and V, TheSpaceReview

Go, Elon!

SpaceNut · 2004-10-07 11:09:40

SpaceX Transfers Falcon Rocket to Vandenberg Launch Complex. The vehicle will now undergo a series of pre-launch tests. Falcon I will carry the TacSat-1 satellite to a 500km orbit (100km above the International Space Station) with a southeast departure track along the California coast.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15227

Ad Astra · 2004-10-07 11:46:21

The Falcon I flight has taken longer than I hoped for, but the fact that it's coming is very exciting. I expect to see it sometime before Feb. 2005.

Even more exciting is what could be accomplished between Robert Bigelow's space prize and the upcoming Falcon V. We should not treat the Falcon V as a sure bet, but it would at least be capable of lofting a Gemini-sized capsule should it reach hardware stage.

Maybe SpaceX deserves consideration for building a new HLLV...

SpaceNut · 2004-10-07 12:08:13

I would say that it would be cheaper than the standard bearers that Nasa currently does use.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-07 19:32:34

I keep asking myself, "Can Falcon V be used for the Bigelow Prize?" Astronautix.com's listing for the Falcon V (which is pure conjecture at this point) states its payload to be 4200 kg to a 200 km orbit.

An Apollo capsule (CM only) weighs about 5,806 kg not including escape tower or retro-rockets. The Gemini, however, was 3,581 kg.

With masses like these, it looks unlikely that Falcon V could launch a 5-7 man capsule. Then again, I could be surprised by Burt Rutan again. With his extensive knowledge of composite materials, perhaps the weight of the capsule could come down to the point where it could be launched on a Falcon V.

Rxke · 2004-10-08 00:37:38

Hobbyspace recently had this preview on Falcon news:

"The Falcon V design has been modified. The upper stage will use a single Merlin engine rather than two Kestrel engines. This has "major effect on mass to orbit due to improved mass fraction, higher specific Impulse and better staging efficiency." This and other improvements give the following boosts in payload for the new design vs the old one.

Orbit Payload (New) Payload (Old)

200 km, 28.5 deg 6020 kg 4,200 kg
400 km, 51 deg 5450 kg 3,570 kg
700 km, sun-synch 4780 kg 3,000 kg
GTO 9 deg 1920 kg 1,250 kg
Escape velocity 1200 kg 840 kg"

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-10-08 21:04:49

Well I think both the Falcon and Falcon V have a huge yet undeveloped military market. The Air Force is currently developing the "Common Aero-Vehicle" to allow the hypersonic delivery of kinetic energy weapons as well as other payloads rapidly anywhere in the world. The falcon fits the bill perfectly for a cheap launch vehicle for strike missions, it's like a budget MinuteMan III without the political implications of an ICBM launch or the fact that we would be expending and ireplacable componet of our nuclear deterent if we started using ICBMs to launch coventional strikes.

This brings up another issue with the fact that the MMIII is over 40 years old and there is no replacement program. We need to start either developing a replacement ICBM or speed the development of space based weapons with a hard target kill capability.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-08 21:29:05

The Minuteman III will probably be usable for a long time, and I doubt we will ever see a direct replacement even after the missile is retired.

This topic is well beyond the theme of this thread, but the nuclear posture trend is away from the city-busting nukes and towards "credible deterrence," like nuclear penetrators and battlefield nukes for using against enemy troop formations.

Instead of focusing on new ICBM's, the Air Force is looking at hypersonic strike systems better suited towards the future battlefield. An example would be the X-37, which is slowly morphing from NASA orbital demonstrator to Air Force suborbital bomber.

There are plenty of Air Force uses for the Falcon rockets. Falcon V could replace Delta II as a GPS sat launcher, and the Falcon I will undoubtedly be used for military payloads, perhaps even micro-sats.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-08 23:44:22

Well I think both the Falcon and Falcon V have a huge yet undeveloped military market. The Air Force is currently developing the "Common Aero-Vehicle" to allow the hypersonic delivery of kinetic energy weapons as well as other payloads rapidly anywhere in the world. The falcon fits the bill perfectly for a cheap launch vehicle for strike missions, it's like a budget MinuteMan III without the political implications of an ICBM launch or the fact that we would be expending and ireplacable componet of our nuclear deterent if we started using ICBMs to launch coventional strikes.
This brings up another issue with the fact that the MMIII is over 40 years old and there is no replacement program. We need to start either developing a replacement ICBM or speed the development of space based weapons with a hard target kill capability..

Falcon as a missile? If memory serves, Elon suggested somthing like that didn't he? Well, to be quite frank and blunt, that would make me question his sanity if he was serious...

Military ICBMs delivering nuclear or conventional payloads need to be able to launch in minutes of the order, which you just can't do with a simple liquid fueled rocket using non-storable propellants.

The Minuteman-III missile has been updated so much that it might as well be a new weapon, but that isn't really as relivent given the USN with the pretty new Trident-II D5 missile and the USAF's huge bomber wings.

The X-37 has been taken out of both NASA's and the USAF's hands and put into some pretty "black" agency... nobody associated with the project or its transfer is allowed to say. Probobly becomming a high-priority anytime spy satelite.

Replacement for the Delta-II, fine, but a missile it is not.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-09 01:23:02

That "black" agency is DARPA. They want to use it for the FALCON progam, not to be confused with the Falcon rocket. It could conduct hypersonic strikes from the continental US and return to a friendly base.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-14 00:06:33

Might Elon Musk be tapped by Burt Rutan to build the booster for his "Tier Two" (Model 346) orbital spacecraft? We may have to wait for the first Falcon I launch, and a new design (bigger than Falcon V) will be needed.

mboeller · 2004-10-14 03:04:49

Might Elon Musk be tapped by Burt Rutan to build the booster for his "Tier Two" (Model 346) orbital spacecraft? We may have to wait for the first Falcon I launch, and a new design (bigger than Falcon V) will be needed.

Why do You think that we need an larger launcher than an Falcon V? IMHO the ~ 6000 Kg into LEO should be good enough for an decent capsule.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-14 08:38:00

Falcon V is good enough for a small capsule, but the Tier II spacecraft looks like a bigger SpaceShipOne. Wings are heavy, and Falcon V will not be up to the challenge.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-14 08:44:42

so strap on a SRB or SRM on the side and that solves the lift problem.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-14 09:25:32

Bolting on SRBs to the side would increase lift, but I don't know if it could increase it enough. A six-seater HL-20 style spaceplane would weigh in around 12,000kg give or take a tonne (or two?) for booster adapters and escape motors.

Also, adding multiple engines that fail catastrophicly, can't be shut down, and are risky to handle on the ground will add signifigant risk to the whole contraption. Manned vehicles or ones making flights often ought to avoid solid rocket motors.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-14 19:46:51

Well said, GCNRevenger. Even von Braun opposed the use of solid rockets for manned spaceflight.

BWhite · 2004-10-14 19:54:57

Well said, GCNRevenger. Even von Braun opposed the use of solid rockets for manned spaceflight.

I still like those wax rockets with pure O2 as an oxidizer. Cut off the O2 and it burns like, well, a candle.

But it would melt in in the Florida sunshine so I guess that is a problem.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-14 21:53:07

Hybrid rockets instead of solid rocket boosters would be a good substitution. You don't have to worry about them exploding accidentally, and they will shut down when cmmanded to do so. The only drawback is a low Isp, similar to solid rockets.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-10-14 21:55:04

I wonder how much of the fear of solid rockets is vaild. I agree on paper the inability to throttle or shut them off is a problem, but the Thikol SRBs have never failed in flight. (baring being fired outside desing parameters, a problem now fixed in any event)

Not saying solids are the way to go just not something we should take off the table, especailly when we are talking about building a HLV from existing componets. Two five segement SRBs on a Enlarged Delta IV or Atlas core using slush hydrogen fuel with regenerative colling could be quite an impressive booster.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-14 23:34:24

Shoving enough oxygen down the core is a trick too Bill to get good performance, oh and the empty weight of Parafin hybrid rockets must be fairly high. There aren't any other hybrid rockets that I know of that have good performance.

As for solid rockets in general, I think thats really a question about how reliable & safe you want your rocket to be and how you intend to get there...:

If you want to build a rocket that is fairly reliable and doesn't fail often, solid rockets are good enough. This is fine for expendable rockets you don't intend to fly often (HLLV?), but if you are talking about an RLV then even a 0.1% chance of failure is unacceptable, given that a SRB failing will probobly obliterate the vehicle.

Then you have the manned concern. When you are dealing with people, we don't really care so much about the reliability of the vehicle, only the surviveability of the vehicle. You do want to maximize reliability, so you risk being put in an "abort mode" as little as possible and here solid rockets have good reccord with Shuttle, but they subtract from the safety of an escape system since they can't be shut down and tend to explode if damaged, so its a tradeoff.

I think that liquid fuel rockets can do the job for manned launch better then solid fuel rockets since they have similar reliability and because escaping from a solid-fuel rocket is harder and less likly to work. A modified Delta-IV Medium with improved engines and lighter materials should be able to launch the basic CEV with no SRBs at all, which I think is ideal. So far Lockheed hasn't been very public with future Atlas-V possibilities.

Putting the giant mega Shuttle SRBs on an EELV+ core would probobly be way overkill and expose the thing to too much thrust/acceleration then it could handle. Each SRB is about as powerful as two of the big-giant-mega Saturn F-1 engines. They would probobly work well for a clean-sheet megalauncher though just as well as they would Shuttle-C/Z, perhaps arraying four of them around a really big central core packing multiple RS-68R engines (five?) and an upper with a single RS-68R. Getting into the >150MT payload range, maybe >200MT, maybe alot more... Now that would be a heavy lifter.

Edit: On further thought about the topic, i'd like to emphasize my opinion that no rocket today is in and of itself safe enough for manned flight if it relies on the reliability of the rocket alone for safety. Some kind of effective escape mechanism is non-negotiable, and if solid rockets preclude this, then that precludes using solid rockets.

clark · 2004-10-15 12:39:50

Well, well, well....

It appears as if Falcon V has undergone a slight modification to its planned integration. Instead of dual Kestral engines for the upper stage, SpaceX is going with a single Merlin in the upper stage. This will have the net effect of improving it's throw weight to orbit. By 2006 they plan on having am upgraded Merlin that will allow them to achieve:

13,260 lbs to 28.5 deg; 12,010 to 51 deg... 2005 version of the Falcon V will use a less advanced Merlin, so it will only be able to loft 80% of the above listed values.

However, dosen't the weight put it in the running for launching manned ships?

BWhite · 2004-10-15 13:21:43

Falcon 1 first launch is scheduled for late November, right?

Hmmm. . . Maybe a trip to So Cal is in order.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-15 16:16:33

SpaceX is only saying "Q1 2005" for the Falcon I launch. I would wager it would go up by the end of February.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-09 23:29:37

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#2 2003-12-10 02:33:18

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#3 2003-12-10 02:44:25

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#4 2004-10-07 11:09:40

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#5 2004-10-07 11:46:21

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#6 2004-10-07 12:08:13

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#7 2004-10-07 19:32:34

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#8 2004-10-08 00:37:38

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#9 2004-10-08 21:04:49

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#10 2004-10-08 21:29:05

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#11 2004-10-08 23:44:22

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#12 2004-10-09 01:23:02

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#13 2004-10-14 00:06:33

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#14 2004-10-14 03:04:49

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#15 2004-10-14 08:38:00

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#16 2004-10-14 08:44:42

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#17 2004-10-14 09:25:32

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#18 2004-10-14 19:46:51

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#19 2004-10-14 19:54:57

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#20 2004-10-14 21:53:07

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#21 2004-10-14 21:55:04

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#22 2004-10-14 23:34:24

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#23 2004-10-15 12:39:50

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#24 2004-10-15 13:21:43

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#25 2004-10-15 16:16:33

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

Board footer