Author Topic: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)  (Read 142596 times)

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 2795
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #20 on: 08/31/2016 10:38 PM »
Thinking of second stages... We have seen many pictures on this forum of Falcon first stages being trucked around the country.  Likewise fairings and legs.  What I don't recall ever seeing any pictures of the second stages being trucked around.  Presumably, over time, we will begin seeing more second stages on the road than first stages.  Comments?
2nd stages just use regular flatbeds. They aren't that noticeable since there are hundreds of tanks that size moving on the highways at any time and there are a lot more routes they can take.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
  • Liked: 390
  • Likes Given: 368
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #21 on: 09/01/2016 02:18 PM »
Not sure if this is the best place to put this; the New York Times is reporting an explosion has taken place at a SpaceX site on the Cape.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/science/explosion-reported-at-spacex-launch-site-in-cape-canaveral.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Hope everyone is safe.

Matthew

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
  • Liked: 1666
  • Likes Given: 656
« Last Edit: 09/01/2016 02:23 PM by cscott »

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7314
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 310
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #23 on: 09/06/2016 02:01 PM »
Performance numbers for F9 FT and FH have been posted to the NASA LSP program LV performance website.

https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Vehicles.aspx

This is what they say about the contract options SpaceX provided:

Falcon 9 Full Thrust:
Quote
SpaceX has offered two performance levels for the Falcon 9 Full Thrust on NLS-II. The first level includes booster performance holdbacks to allow for a Return-to-Launch-Site (RTLS) first stage recovery. The second level provides higher performance by allowing the first stage to be recovered via the SpaceX Automated Spaceport Drone Ship (ASDS), positioned downrange from the launch site.

Falcon Heavy:
Quote
SpaceX has offered two performance levels for the Falcon Heavy on NLS-II. The first level includes booster performance holdbacks to allow for first stage recovery. The second level provides higher performance by utilizing the full vehicle capability, foregoing recovery of the first stage.

Unless there's a glitch in the website, it would appear only two mission profiles are available, no east coast F9 launch profiles:

1) west coast polar orbit launch on a F9
2) escape trajectory launch on FH

Attached are two performance plots for each mission type and likely competing vehicles:
« Last Edit: 09/06/2016 02:06 PM by ugordan »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3076
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 1933
  • Likes Given: 2234
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #24 on: 09/06/2016 05:32 PM »
Over at SpaceNews they have a short article about Spacecom, the owner of Amos-6, being offered $50 million or a free launch from SpaceX.

Spacecom says SpaceX will give it $50 million or free launch for losing Amos-6 - SpaceNews.com

What jumped out at me right away is that what we could be seeing is the internal cost of a Falcon 9, since SpaceX is in essence valuing a free launch at $50M.

If that were true (and it may not be) that would mean the profit for each Falcon 9 at a list price of $62M would be $12M.

An interesting data point nonetheless.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline mheney

  • The Next Man on the Moon
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
  • Silver Spring, MD
  • Liked: 329
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #25 on: 09/06/2016 05:35 PM »
Either that, or $50M is what Spacecom has paid SpaceX to date for their launch.  The number need not bear any relation to SpaceX's internal costs at all ....

Offline Jimmy_C

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #26 on: 09/07/2016 09:30 PM »
Why do they jettisonned the Trunk so late?
You de-orbit with it to control when it re-enters.  (Like Soyuz does.)

So that the trunk doesn't because space debris? It seems like an additionnal failure point (especially if you had crew in the capsule).

If it didn't separate on a manned flight, they might be able to do an abort burn to raise the perigee back up to give them time to troubleshoot and fix. That would likely imply having to do a water landing though, because they would have burned more propellant on the abort back to orbit, and the second deorbit burn.

~Jon

Sometimes Soyuz reenters with the service module still attached by accident. The capsule can survive if the re-entry heating eventually severs the two sections. Can Dragon survive the same way? What if the trunk doesn't detach after an abort?

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1377
  • California
  • Liked: 1069
  • Likes Given: 1348
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #27 on: 09/11/2016 12:14 AM »
Over at SpaceNews they have a short article about Spacecom, the owner of Amos-6, being offered $50 million or a free launch from SpaceX.

Spacecom says SpaceX will give it $50 million or free launch for losing Amos-6 - SpaceNews.com

What jumped out at me right away is that what we could be seeing is the internal cost of a Falcon 9, since SpaceX is in essence valuing a free launch at $50M.

If that were true (and it may not be) that would mean the profit for each Falcon 9 at a list price of $62M would be $12M.

An interesting data point nonetheless.
If you're guessing that it's a pure hardware build cost, it would still be leaving out lots of things: mission planning and management, range fees, launch licensing/regulatory compliance, etc.  Basically, I can't imagine that none of those costs are covered in the payments-to-date (i.e. up to failure). 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • US
  • Liked: 871
  • Likes Given: 715
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #28 on: 09/25/2016 08:12 PM »
Recent FCC filing by SpaceX:

Quote
From: Brandi Sippel
To: Doug Young
Date: September 23, 2016
Subject: Request for Info - File # 0096-EX-CN-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
SpaceX has a requirement per 47CFR 417 to perform surveillance to verify boats and ships are not at
excessive risk from a launch. For previous launches we've relied on the Air Force to perform this
task, but we now prefer to deploy our own ocean surveillance system. This system would include
installing Garmin 2526 marine radars on towers at Launch Complexes 39A and 40 to scan for small
vessels that may have missed the warning notifications and have strayed in to the hazard area. A license
extending five years is requested because this requirement must be met for all future launches and
SpaceX anticipates use of this system to support launches throughout the requested time period.

The application form says they'd cover 0 to 154 degrees azimuth from SLC-40 camera tower and 328 to 135 degrees azimuth from LC-39A water tower.

Edit:  There are also a few FCC applications/modifications for moving the CRS-10 flight to LC-39A NET November (which doesn't mean it will necessarily launch in November, they're just updating the paperwork to allow it).
« Last Edit: 09/25/2016 08:18 PM by gongora »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30805
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9048
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #29 on: 09/25/2016 08:20 PM »
Recent FCC filing by SpaceX:

Quote
From: Brandi Sippel
To: Doug Young
Date: September 23, 2016
Subject: Request for Info - File # 0096-EX-CN-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
SpaceX has a requirement per 47CFR 417 to perform surveillance to verify boats and ships are not at
excessive risk from a launch. For previous launches we've relied on the Air Force to perform this
task, but we now prefer to deploy our own ocean surveillance system. This system would include
installing Garmin 2526 marine radars on towers at Launch Complexes 39A and 40 to scan for small
vessels that may have missed the warning notifications and have strayed in to the hazard area. A license
extending five years is requested because this requirement must be met for all future launches and
SpaceX anticipates use of this system to support launches throughout the requested time period.

The application form says they'd cover 0 to 154 degrees azimuth from SLC-40 camera tower and 328 to 135 degrees azimuth from LC-39A water tower.

Edit:  There are also a few FCC applications/modifications for moving the CRS-10 flight to LC-39A NET November (which doesn't mean it will necessarily launch in November, they're just updating the paperwork to allow it).

Don't understand that.  The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system says

Offline LucR

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #30 on: 09/25/2016 08:32 PM »
Perhaps they'd like practice for Texas / Brownville operations? Would this kind of thing be ridiculously expensive?

Offline mfck

  • Office Plankton Representative
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Israel
  • Liked: 235
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #31 on: 09/25/2016 11:55 PM »


Recent FCC filing by SpaceX:

Quote
From: Brandi Sippel
To: Doug Young
Date: September 23, 2016
Subject: Request for Info - File # 0096-EX-CN-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
SpaceX has a requirement per 47CFR 417 to perform surveillance to verify boats and ships are not at
excessive risk from a launch. For previous launches we've relied on the Air Force to perform this
task, but we now prefer to deploy our own ocean surveillance system. This system would include
installing Garmin 2526 marine radars on towers at Launch Complexes 39A and 40 to scan for small
vessels that may have missed the warning notifications and have strayed in to the hazard area. A license
extending five years is requested because this requirement must be met for all future launches and
SpaceX anticipates use of this system to support launches throughout the requested time period.

The application form says they'd cover 0 to 154 degrees azimuth from SLC-40 camera tower and 328 to 135 degrees azimuth from LC-39A water tower.

Edit:  There are also a few FCC applications/modifications for moving the CRS-10 flight to LC-39A NET November (which doesn't mean it will necessarily launch in November, they're just updating the paperwork to allow it).

Don't understand that.  The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system says

They are saying

a) they want this to mitigate excessive risk to boats.

Maybe the AF is unable or unwilling to take responsibility for the well being of SX fans in zodiacs breaching the range, and SX has to manage liabilities.

b) they say it is a requirement. Would you happen to know if this is an external one?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • US
  • Liked: 871
  • Likes Given: 715
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #32 on: 09/26/2016 12:36 AM »
Don't understand that.  The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system says

Maybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead?  I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30805
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9048
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #33 on: 09/26/2016 01:54 AM »


They are saying

a) they want this to mitigate excessive risk to boats.

Maybe the AF is unable or unwilling to take responsibility for the well being of SX fans in zodiacs breaching the range, and SX has to manage liabilities.

b) they say it is a requirement. Would you happen to know if this is an external one?

a.  No, the range has the ultimate authority and it is responsible

b.  It is an Air Force requirement

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30805
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9048
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #34 on: 09/26/2016 01:55 AM »
Don't understand that.  The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system says

Maybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead?  I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.

It isn't a service.  The Air Force isn't going to allow a launch unless it says the range is clear

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 797
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #35 on: 09/26/2016 01:58 AM »
Don't understand that.  The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system says

Maybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead?  I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.

It isn't a service.  The Air Force isn't going to allow a launch unless it says the range is clear
Will that also be true for Texas? I've wondered how range safety will be managed when they get that site online.
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • US
  • Liked: 871
  • Likes Given: 715
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #36 on: 09/26/2016 02:08 AM »
Don't understand that.  The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system says

Maybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead?  I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.

It isn't a service.  The Air Force isn't going to allow a launch unless it says the range is clear

Yeah, Air Force personnel need to verify the range is clear before they launch, but does that information actually need to come from Air Force owned radars?  Is SpaceX charged a particular fee for the Air Force using their radar and personnel to monitor the area, or is there a single fee that just covers everything involved with using the range?  Is the AF going to maintain the same level of control over everything as the number of commercial launches from the Cape increases (which could require them to provide more staffing), or could they find ways to move some of those responsibilities to the private sector?  They are moving towards GPS tracking and autonomous flight termination systems for the launch vehicles, this could be another way to lighten their workload for launches that don't have anything to do with National Security missions?

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 2795
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #37 on: 09/26/2016 02:36 AM »
Don't understand that.  The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system says

Maybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead?  I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.

It isn't a service.  The Air Force isn't going to allow a launch unless it says the range is clear
Will that also be true for Texas? I've wondered how range safety will be managed when they get that site online.
Drones, cameras, and if it's like McGregor, private guards on the dirt roads leading east. A small boat radar on a stick would cover the wet restricted area. A couple of guards on the north and south ends of the beach in case anybody wanders in would be a lot cheaper than a canceled launch.

Online jpfulton314

  • Life Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #38 on: 09/26/2016 03:48 AM »
Spaceport America Update...

The news from New Mexico is that the state and Bureau of Land Managment are signing off on an agreement that will allow for the construction of a road from I-25 to the Spaceport. 

Numerous local media outlets are reporting the story: http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/local/spaceport/2016/09/16/construction-southern-road-spaceport-could-begin-april/90508450/

Whether or not this means use by SpaceX remains to be seen but I have heard no news of SpaceX pulling out of the Spaceport.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30805
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9048
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #39 on: 09/26/2016 03:22 PM »

Yeah, Air Force personnel need to verify the range is clear before they launch, but does that information actually need to come from Air Force owned radars?  Is SpaceX charged a particular fee for the Air Force using their radar and personnel to monitor the area, or is there a single fee that just covers everything involved with using the range?  Is the AF going to maintain the same level of control over everything as the number of commercial launches from the Cape increases (which could require them to provide more staffing), or could they find ways to move some of those responsibilities to the private sector?  They are moving towards GPS tracking and autonomous flight termination systems for the launch vehicles, this could be another way to lighten their workload for launches that don't have anything to do with National Security missions?

It has nothing to do with National Security missions.  The Air Force manages the range for all launches regardless of the payload.  The tasks to ensure public safety are basically the same for all launches.  Those are Air Force requirements.  The additional costs are for imaging and other mission assurance items.

Tags: