Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-23 10:05:54

The structural concerns for the tank (weight of itself and the rest of the rocket above it pressing down with high G-forces, ability of the tank to resist the vibration despite the supercold temperatures, etc) are a bigger factor then its ability to withstand internal pressures. The Atlas-V actually would probobly crumple like a soda can being stomped on if it wern't pressure stabilized.

Ad Astra · 2005-03-23 14:05:09

That was the case for the original Atlas I/II/III, and still applies to the Centaur 2nd stage. It does not apply to the Atlas V.

Ad Astra · 2005-04-03 21:12:19

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketsc … tml]Falcon I structural testing

Now the inaugural launch is scheduled for late summer.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-03 21:18:55

Elon can't keep doing this... he's gotta fly the thing some time before he runs out of money.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-04-03 23:08:31

Wait a minute, I thought the structures already were qualified. Wasn't the Falcon I already sitting on its pad? Good greif, Spacex really ought to fly that thing as soon as they can, they're starting to embarass themselves. If the engines still need to be qualified, for all we know the launch could slip into 2006, two full years after the originally published launch date.

I have no problem with every engineer at Spacex making absolutely positively without-a-doubt certain that the Falcon I won't blow itself up or crunch on its first flight, but they should not announce a launch date until they can be reasonably sure they can make it. Hopefully when they finally get around to flying they'll be able to show their much-touted ability to fly anytime.

dicktice · 2005-04-04 09:19:21

Meanwhile, back at Scaled Composites, things happen....

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-04 12:58:00

Meanwhile, back at Scaled Composites, things happen....

Except that they aren't Dicktice. Burt & Co aren't going anywhere with their toy rubber rocket, it would need to be many many times more powerful, and even Scaled engineers say so.

Elon needs to get on with it, he doesn't have unlimited time. If it takes months and years to prep a Falcon-I for launch, how is he supposed to have any decent flight rate? And if he can't handle the dinky Falcon-I, how will he handle th big Falcon-V?

clark · 2005-04-04 14:02:46

Elon needs to get on with it, he doesn't have unlimited time. If it takes months and years to prep a Falcon-I for launch, how is he supposed to have any decent flight rate? And if he can't handle the dinky Falcon-I, how will he handle th big Falcon-V?

I call troll.

Elon and SpaceX are taking their time because they want to have the first launch go off with out a hitch. Go ask the Japanese about that one. In a nutshell, their aiming for reliability, which requires the go-slow approach. Of course there are unforseen issues, but then again, that's true for any new rocket, which Falcon I is! As for Falcon V, it's nothing more than an uprated Falcon I, and most of the bug testing will be done with the Falcon I. That means the turn around time for development of the Falcon V will be much shorter in comparison to the Falcon I.

Now, the whole point of this endeavour is to build up the reputation of SpaceX as a reliabe low-cost launcher. Having the first rocket blow up won't help that image, especially in light of the fact that SpaceX is very interested in human rating the Falcon V.

Even with the cost over runs and the time delay for Falcon I, the launch price has remained constant. They are able to do that because they used conservative estimates when they developed their business case- they assumed that stuff like this would inevitably happen.

And Elon does have near unlimited time- it's his money they are burning. There are no public stock holders to make happy, and their business model is predicated on customers who will be served by their ability to offer low cost launches (current piggy backers on the big launchers).

BWhite · 2005-04-04 14:22:34

Elon needs to get on with it, he doesn't have unlimited time. If it takes months and years to prep a Falcon-I for launch, how is he supposed to have any decent flight rate? And if he can't handle the dinky Falcon-I, how will he handle th big Falcon-V?
I call troll.

:up:

Both NASA and DoD crave lift not coming from Boeing or Lockmart. Delays will be annoying but not fatal, if Falcon works for the price advertised.

GCNRevenger, why do we witness an almost Schiavo-like attachment to Kistler? IMHO, because if Kistler succeeds, low cost to LEO will have arrived.

Elon Musk has burned through maybe 3% of the indulgences granted Kistler.

Edited By BWhite on 1112646348

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-04 14:53:27

"And Elon does have near unlimited time- it's his money they are burning"

That isn't true though. Eventually, the USAF will want its payload launched (before it becomes obsolete), and if he is going to be a contender for real military contracts then they may want a launcher they know will be responsive without undue risk of losing the vehicle. Having a multi-year launch delay isn't a good way to reassure your time-sensitive customer that your vehicle is a sound investment.

Falcon-V is neither an upgrade nor a derivitive of the Falcon-I, but rather a whole new rocket with multiple engines and several times as big. It may even use an RL-10 for the upper stage.

"IMHO, because if Kistler succeeds, low cost to LEO will have arrived."

No, it would be lower cost to LEO, considerably cheaper then a Delta-II or something but still not super-cheap like it needs to be for orbital commerce... I am pretty convinced that Kistler will fail, barring large infusions of cash before and after the first flight, because they are too far behind on their vehicle and since they can't absorb losing their prototype without a very large "insurance" investment.

BWhite · 2005-04-04 15:03:42

GCNRevenger, my intuition is that you are correct about Kistler.

However, I predict Musk will be given plenty of slack even if one or another specific payload gets pulled. Such delays are a major setback, but will not be fatal so long as Musk believes he can make a profit - - eventually - - flying rockets for the prices he claims.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-04 16:29:29

I also wanna know how Kistler or SpaceX, if they are going to fly supplies and science gear to the ISS, intend to make it the last mile... and do it safely.

dicktice · 2005-04-04 18:19:20

Pant, pant ... you make that last mile sound scary. Perhaps, a life-line in the form of a tether?

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-04 19:51:54

Well it is scarry. You can't say "close enough" like you can a satelite orbit or something...

You have to bring a ten-tonne chunk of metal to a dead stop with centimeter precision with a high degree of reliability in all the vastness of space before your power runs out... if you can't get within reach and stopped for the slow-moving ISS robot arm, then it doesn't matter how cheap your rocket is.

And you have to do it safely... if you screw up, you have a ten-tonne missile on a collision course, which almost was the doom of Mir.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-05 05:33:26

Question I have, is time money and is that not the penalty that a shuttle standing army has going against it. Granted the size of the army is important but once production should ramp up it is a huge problem when all the added staff is doing little to keep cost down.

As for collisions in space who would want to be the insurer and whom would be at fault for any such mishaps?

Back to falcon risk of launching early either they can do it or they are just wasting everyones time, hopes, dreams of low cost and money in the long run.

clark · 2005-04-05 06:30:06

Multi-year launch delay?

What the hell are you talking about? There has been a delay of a couple of months, not years. They wanted to launch at the begining of the year, an optimistic assesment. Delays like this are routine for first launches. The sky is not as dark as you are making it out to be.

and if he is going to be a contender for real military contracts then they may want a launcher they know will be responsive without undue risk of losing the vehicle.

Sure, but the first launch of any vehicle is the biggest hurdle. It is the proof of concept. If they rush it out the gate, and it fails, then it will set them back years as they test and re-test every piece of hardware and systems integration to prove the rocket flight worthy.

Falcon-V is neither an upgrade nor a derivitive of the Falcon-I, but rather a whole new rocket with multiple engines and several times as big. It

Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. :laugh:

spacex.com:

Falcon V:

Engines – The engines for first flight of Falcon V are in fabrication and should come off the manufacturing line around June. These engines are a slightly improved and higher thrust version of Merlin 1A, appropriately called Merlin 1B. Static fire of the Falcon V first stage is planned for this summer on our large tripod test stand.

Avionics – Falcon V will have a triple redundant version of the Falcon I avionics and will move more in the direction of digital sensors and controls. Flight software will be much the same, with the significant differences being dealing with the possible loss of engines in flight and redundancy. We are also taking nothing for granted in assuming that it will be the same as Falcon I and intend to do a full hardware-in-the-loop simulation of the whole system.

Launch infrastructure – Most of our Vandenberg and Kwajalein construction and ground support equipment allow for launch of both Falcon I and Falcon V. We obviously need to build a new mobile launcher that supports a 12 ft wide rocket, but otherwise it will be just a question of adding more propellant storage tanks when it comes to launching Falcon V.

As for the ISS, it remains to be seen if SpaceX is seriously pursuing servicing opportunites. They got GAO involved with the Kistler contract because they saw it as bad precedent, not because they neccessarily wanted to take the job.

BWhite · 2005-04-05 07:22:17

Well it is scarry. You can't say "close enough" like you can a satelite orbit or something...
You have to bring a ten-tonne chunk of metal to a dead stop with centimeter precision with a high degree of reliability in all the vastness of space before your power runs out... if you can't get within reach and stopped for the slow-moving ISS robot arm, then it doesn't matter how cheap your rocket is.
And you have to do it safely... if you screw up, you have a ten-tonne missile on a collision course, which almost was the doom of Mir.

And of this is why Progress launched from Kouru, at less than $2000 per pound for cargo delivered to the airlock, is the best value going right now.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-05 07:37:39

On that note Russia Eyes Price Controls For Launch Services

The Russian space agency will prevent Russian firms from undercutting world launch prices, a new agency reported.
Roskosmos, the Russian Federal Space Agency, will not allow dumping of launch services on the international market, spokesman Vyacheslav Davidenko told the ITAR-TASS news agency.

This actually a good thing and it does allow them to charge more, as time goes on for that same rocket which does under cut all available launch vehicles at this time.

clark · 2005-04-05 10:01:08

This actually a good thing and it does allow them to charge more, as time goes on for that same rocket which does under cut all available launch vehicles at this time.

This is a *bad* thing.

"There has lately been a tendency among Russian enterprises to offer satellite launch services to foreign customers at prices which are substantially lower than those prevailing on the world market," Roskosmos said in a news release.
In particular, proposals are being made for launches of foreign satellites using the Dnepr launch vehicle or its modifications.
"Enterprises are asked to hold the necessary consultations with the Federal Space Agency before discussing and agreeing the main terms of contracts to provide launch services to foreign customers and bef ore setting prices," the space agency said in a release.

This way the State government can preclude launch of foreign sats, if they wish. It is a way of maintaining State control over launch.

clark · 2005-04-07 07:48:46

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketsc … e-05t.html

Last September, AirLaunch, Lockheed Martin, Microcosm and SpaceX won follow-on contracts, each worth between $8 million and $11.7, for preliminary vehicle design and risk-reduction demonstrations. Those second-phase efforts will last only 36 months, but this year DARPA will select one or two of the proposals for continued funding, with the goal of a demonstration launch by 2007 to validate vehicle performance.
SpaceX is the notable exception. It is expected to debut its rocket, also named Falcon, this year, and DARPA's contract with SpaceX calls for an actual demonstration launch, not just design work.
"Their goal is to demonstrate responsiveness," DARPA spokeswoman Jan Walker told UPI's Space Race 2. "They have to show that they can turn around and do the launch in 48 hours, although the ultimate program goal is to do it in 24 hours."
Each contractor will employ a slightly different approach," Walker added. "Each test and demonstration is customized to what they are doing."
DARPA will be able to choose among a broad array of technologies and systems. SpaceX is building a two-stage, liquid-fueled reusable booster that also is the model for the firm's larger Falcon 5 launcher. Company president Elon Musk -- creator of the highly successful Internet business PayPal and other ventures -- plans to use his rockets eventually to launch people into space. In working on the DARPA contract, Musk will attempt to undercut his own already under-market $6 million launch fee.

Looks like Musk still has some time... :laugh:

SpaceNut · 2005-05-25 08:38:48

While the falcon is indeed not a realistic option for the cev capsule the falcon V just might be but until there are flights under the falcon 1 belt it would not be even a consideration.
However they claim to be going after the light weight launch profile to which if there is a market for that level of launch services are there indeed even smaller lift requirements by others.
In the article Successful Flight Test Of Prospector 6 NLV Development Vehicle it would appear that there is just that; to develop a low-cost Nanosat Launch Vehicle (NLV) that will be dedicated to delivering 10 kg payloads to low Earth orbit.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-31 05:35:33

The engine firing, I would say more like a giant step and soon it will fly...

Privately-made Falcon 1 rocket roars on the pad

SpaceX Completes Final Milestone Before Falcon I Maiden Launch

SpaceX Test Fires Falcon 1 Engine (Movie)

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-31 07:28:18

They haven't... haven't... even installed the upper stage engine yet? And are taking apart the rocket and shipping the main back to Texas?

I am beginning to wonder if Elon is just taking the USAF for a ride... "See what a great technology development program our rocket-like testbed is?"

Mad Grad Student · 2005-05-31 21:34:51

Apparently if Spacex hasn't expressly stated that any development has occured with the Falcon I, we should assume that it hasn't happened yet. Their behavior keeps seeming nuttier by the minute (where in the net is my update!?), but there is real progress happening. I would say that the odds are better than 50/50 that Spacex will launch by August or so, and the odds are quite good that they'll launch before the end of the year. It could be worse. Most alt. space companies simply sit around doing nothing.

clark · 2005-06-01 05:14:41

Musk can't launch till he gets the green light from USAF, which wants to launch a Titan carrying a military sat. After the Titan launch, Musk can then launch.

SpaceX is slated to launch 3 more times in 12 months from the first flight (probably at the end of summer)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-03-23 10:05:54

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#77 2005-03-23 14:05:09

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#78 2005-04-03 21:12:19

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#79 2005-04-03 21:18:55

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#80 2005-04-03 23:08:31

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#81 2005-04-04 09:19:21

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#82 2005-04-04 12:58:00

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#83 2005-04-04 14:02:46

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#84 2005-04-04 14:22:34

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#85 2005-04-04 14:53:27

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#86 2005-04-04 15:03:42

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#87 2005-04-04 16:29:29

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#88 2005-04-04 18:19:20

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#89 2005-04-04 19:51:54

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#90 2005-04-05 05:33:26

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#91 2005-04-05 06:30:06

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#92 2005-04-05 07:22:17

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#93 2005-04-05 07:37:39

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#94 2005-04-05 10:01:08

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#95 2005-04-07 07:48:46

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#96 2005-05-25 08:38:48

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#97 2005-05-31 05:35:33

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#98 2005-05-31 07:28:18

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#99 2005-05-31 21:34:51

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#100 2005-06-01 05:14:41

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

Board footer