Author Topic: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion  (Read 1386156 times)

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #900 on: 02/17/2010 02:21 pm »
Does it also depend on what time they lose one or more engines?  For example, if early in the flight they could lose 1 engine and still successfully reach orbit, if T+1 minute, they could lose 2 engines..etc?

Pretty much. The closer you get to 1st stage burnout (and the higher the acceleration for fixed thrust engines), the lesser the impact of losing an engine. The nominal F9 flight plan calls for 2 engines to be shut down cca. 15 s before burnout to limit G loads.

Offline gkehrl

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #901 on: 02/17/2010 03:23 pm »
actually SpaceX bid much too low as evidenced by the fact that their contract value is 1.6 billion for 12 flights and OSC's contract value is 1.9 billion for 8 flights.

Who's to say that if they bid much higher than that, the scale wouldn't have tipped over to PlanetSpace and the proven subcontractors?

PlanetSpace's bid was $100M lower than OSC's and offered all cargo types with a modular transfer vehicle capable of flying on multiple rockets for assured access - cost was not the determining factor why the contract was given to OSC - politics was!

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #902 on: 02/17/2010 03:37 pm »
actually SpaceX bid much too low as evidenced by the fact that their contract value is 1.6 billion for 12 flights and OSC's contract value is 1.9 billion for 8 flights.

Who's to say that if they bid much higher than that, the scale wouldn't have tipped over to PlanetSpace and the proven subcontractors?

PlanetSpace's bid was $100M lower than OSC's and offered all cargo types with a modular transfer vehicle capable of flying on multiple rockets for assured access - cost was not the determining factor why the contract was given to OSC - politics was!

 Credibility wasn't a minor issue.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #903 on: 02/17/2010 03:41 pm »
Credibility wasn't a minor issue.

Exactly. Saying SpaceX could have just slightly underbid PlanetSpace and won just like that is really oversimplifying things. At one point their own inexperience could have become a deciding factor over cost and they had no way of knowing what that level was.

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #904 on: 02/17/2010 04:02 pm »
Has anyone here ever discussed the implications of the Spacex - US Airforce connection. It seems to go way back There is constant talk of Spacex launches at Vandenburg and other things. Any chance of Spacex launching the X37b with the Falcon 9 heavy? Or should we look forward to Spacex launching global monitoring devices. I'm wondering if the connection will have further implications in the human arena? A possible airforce crew capacity?

Offline Peter NASA

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
  • SOMD
  • Liked: 8747
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #905 on: 02/17/2010 04:05 pm »
actually SpaceX bid much too low as evidenced by the fact that their contract value is 1.6 billion for 12 flights and OSC's contract value is 1.9 billion for 8 flights.



Who's to say that if they bid much higher than that, the scale wouldn't have tipped over to PlanetSpace and the proven subcontractors?

PlanetSpace's bid was $100M lower than OSC's and offered all cargo types with a modular transfer vehicle capable of flying on multiple rockets for assured access - cost was not the determining factor why the contract was given to OSC - politics was!

Nonsense. There wasn't any politics involved.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/planetspace-officially-protest-nasas-crs-selection/
« Last Edit: 02/17/2010 04:05 pm by Peter NASA »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #906 on: 02/17/2010 04:27 pm »
Has anyone here ever discussed the implications of the Spacex - US Airforce connection. It seems to go way back There is constant talk of Spacex launches at Vandenburg and other things. Any chance of Spacex launching the X37b with the Falcon 9 heavy? Or should we look forward to Spacex launching global monitoring devices. I'm wondering if the connection will have further implications in the human arena? A possible airforce crew capacity?

At the AIAA last summer their mouthpiece mentioned DoD has interest in intercept/inspection missions for DragonLab, which he also revealed could be outfitted with a grapple if required.  Chew that one around a bit.
« Last Edit: 02/17/2010 04:28 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #907 on: 02/17/2010 05:29 pm »

At the AIAA last summer their mouthpiece mentioned DoD has interest in intercept/inspection missions for DragonLab, which he also revealed could be outfitted with a grapple if required.  Chew that one around a bit.

In every engineering department I've ever been in there is a concept of throwing a ton of ideas (I think the real word begins with a an S and will get me mod'd) against a wall and seeing what sticks.

How easy would it be to do, what is small enough that you can grab it and take it home, how do you escape detection, can a falcon be so responsive that it can be sent up on short notice?

I'm chewing and coming up with reasons why it would not be worth doing.

If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #908 on: 02/17/2010 05:30 pm »
1.  Has anyone here ever discussed the implications of the Spacex - US Airforce connection.

2.  It seems to go way back There is constant talk of Spacex launches at Vandenburg and other things.

3.  Any chance of Spacex launching the X37b with the Falcon 9 heavy?

4.  Or should we look forward to Spacex launching global monitoring devices.

5.  I'm wondering if the connection will have further implications in the human arena? A possible airforce crew capacity?


1.  What connection?   There isn't one. The USAF doesn't need more boosters.  It has the EELV's.  Look at Spacex F9 contracts, are there any USAF?    The USAF has a IDIQ contract for F1, are there any launches scheduled?

2.  SpaceX was at VandenbErg because it was an available launch site., ot because of USAF requirements

3.  No and why?   X-37 is flying on Atlas.

4.  For NASA, maybe, if they win a launch service competition. (They are a party to the NASA Launch Service contract, along with ULA and OSC).  For the USAF, not for many years, since they have EELV's.  The USAF just started looking at what it would take to "certify" another launch vehicle provider in the EELV class.

5.  What connection?   Also, the USAF doesn't see much use for crew vehicles.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #909 on: 02/17/2010 05:35 pm »

At the AIAA last summer their mouthpiece mentioned DoD has interest in intercept/inspection missions for DragonLab, which he also revealed could be outfitted with a grapple if required.  Chew that one around a bit.

In every engineering department I've ever been in there is a concept of throwing a ton of ideas (I think the real word begins with a an S and will get me mod'd) against a wall and seeing what sticks.

How easy would it be to do, what is small enough that you can grab it and take it home, how do you escape detection, can a falcon be so responsive that it can be sent up on short notice?

I'm chewing and coming up with reasons why it would not be worth doing.


It'd be more effective for the DoD in that just mentioning it will make the likes of Russia and China nervous... and maybe even spend money trying to mitigate against this "idea." That's a lot cheaper than actually having to pay SpaceX for this sort of capability, and it's worth almost as much!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #910 on: 02/17/2010 05:41 pm »
1.  Has anyone here ever discussed the implications of the Spacex - US Airforce connection.

2.  It seems to go way back There is constant talk of Spacex launches at Vandenburg and other things.

3.  Any chance of Spacex launching the X37b with the Falcon 9 heavy?

4.  Or should we look forward to Spacex launching global monitoring devices.

5.  I'm wondering if the connection will have further implications in the human arena? A possible airforce crew capacity?


1.  What connection?   There isn't one. The USAF doesn't need more boosters.  It has the EELV's.  Look at Spacex F9 contracts, are there any USAF?    The USAF has a IDIQ contract for F1, are there any launches scheduled?

2.  SpaceX was at VandenbErg because it was an available launch site., ot because of USAF requirements

3.  No and why?   X-37 is flying on Atlas.

4.  For NASA, maybe, if they win a launch service competition. (They are a party to the NASA Launch Service contract, along with ULA and OSC).  For the USAF, not for many years, since they have EELV's.  The USAF just started looking at what it would take to "certify" another launch vehicle provider in the EELV class.

5.  What connection?   Also, the USAF doesn't see much use for crew vehicles.

Could mr.mark be talking of the early rapid response launch efforts that SpaceX was attempting?  Wasn't one of their payloads on a failed Falcon 1 test flight for the us air force?  I recall SpaceX was boasting that they were going to launch the payload within just a few weeks of its delivery, having known nothing about the payload until the moment they received it.

Or could mr.mark be confusing the Air Force's own "Falcon" launcher program with the Falcon rockets of SpaceX?
« Last Edit: 02/17/2010 09:51 pm by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #911 on: 02/17/2010 06:30 pm »
This kinda belongs in the SpaceX thread, just in over the news that the GA plane crash in CA today included exec(s) from Mr. Musk's other company. Tesla motors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/tesla-motors-executive-re_n_465931.html

Hearts go out to the family's of those killed today.
« Last Edit: 02/17/2010 06:33 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Chris-A

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #912 on: 02/17/2010 06:39 pm »
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/02/15/daily54.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/17/BA391C32O5.DTL

Yes, Just found out on news wire. The plane was going to Hawthorne.
By the sources, it was not Elon's Falcon 900 (N900SX) tri-jet.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #913 on: 02/17/2010 07:33 pm »
Twitter out that Mr. Musk was not on the plane.

http://twitter.com/kensweet/status/9247008924

BREAKING: FOX confirms that Telsa Exec Elon Musk was not on board the Palo Alto plane crash, says it is "worst day in Telsa's history."

If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #914 on: 02/17/2010 07:34 pm »
Let's be very careful with this guys. Given the amount of people we have on the forum, maybe someone can get to the bottom of this real fast, as it's a very sensitive subject otherwise (is anyway).
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #915 on: 02/17/2010 07:35 pm »
Twitter out that Mr. Musk was not on the plane.

http://twitter.com/kensweet/status/9247008924

BREAKING: FOX confirms that Telsa Exec Elon Musk was not on board the Palo Alto plane crash, says it is "worst day in Telsa's history."



Ok, "good" as much as the situation isn't.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #916 on: 02/17/2010 08:11 pm »
Apparently what started SpaceX was that Elon wanted a cheap launcher to launch a Greenhouse to Mars ;). Put $100m into SpaceX and could survive four Falcon 9 failures apparently ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16elon.html?ref=science&pagewanted=all

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #917 on: 02/17/2010 09:15 pm »
Apparently what started SpaceX was that Elon wanted a cheap launcher to launch a Greenhouse to Mars ;).

So... I'm thinking that this makes him an "O'Neill" - His ultimate goal is colonisation and even possibly terraforming.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Nate_Trost

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #918 on: 02/17/2010 09:59 pm »
I think he'd already put $100m into SpaceX by the end 2005. Who knows what the actual number is, the $100m figure has been the only one for years.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #919 on: 02/17/2010 10:05 pm »
Multiply the average aerospace engineer's annual salary by 900 and you'll start to get a picture of what he's paying. Elrond (or whoever does the purchasing decisions) is a canny penny pincher though, using scrapyard parts wherever he can, just like the Astronaut Farmer.

SpaceX has been cashflow positive, though, according to accounting rules (milestones, contracts etc). I wonder if he's had to use credit for this, or if it just comes out of his pockets?
« Last Edit: 02/17/2010 10:10 pm by Lampyridae »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0