Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 1)  (Read 790523 times)

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #740 on: 09/20/2012 04:39 pm »

I am unable to access that PDF from the Swedish website.  Can you attach it rather than the link? Does it have any additional explanation?
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #741 on: 09/20/2012 04:54 pm »

I am unable to access that PDF from the Swedish website.  Can you attach it rather than the link? Does it have any additional explanation?


thx ChefPat for the good looking PDF

Quick thought:  SpaceX is competing with the Russian DNEPR…..wow
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Liked: 4567
  • Likes Given: 5105
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #742 on: 09/21/2012 05:40 am »
I am unable to access that PDF from the Swedish website.  Can you attach it rather than the link? Does it have any additional explanation?
Thanks.  That makes it easy.
The lower image displays a file name "Iridium 5-4 configuration with fairing 2.jpg" so apparently is is the configuration with nine Iridium Next satellites, portrayed in a highly stylized manner.
A small length of the Merlin 1D engine bells is obscured behind that image.  My system just can't tease them apart. Oh well.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #743 on: 09/21/2012 06:23 am »
I am unable to access that PDF from the Swedish website.  Can you attach it rather than the link? Does it have any additional explanation?
Thanks.  That makes it easy.
The lower image displays a file name "Iridium 5-4 configuration with fairing 2.jpg" so apparently is is the configuration with nine Iridium Next satellites, portrayed in a highly stylized manner.
A small length of the Merlin 1D engine bells is obscured behind that image.  My system just can't tease them apart. Oh well.

From earlier in the thread:

This is because the entire graphic is not visible in the Iridium PDF. The bottom part of the image is obscured by a close-up of the fairing and payload. A print screen results in a cropped image and the file has document assembly disallowed so you can't move or delete the image on top. Steve E. Kunszabo is the creator of this file, so presumably he has the original image.

Document disassembly disallowed? Don't be too sure! ;D
Here's the image directly ripped from the pdf (thanks, pdfimages!). Note that full engine nozzles are now visible.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Liked: 4567
  • Likes Given: 5105
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #744 on: 09/21/2012 11:06 pm »
Document disassembly disallowed? Don't be too sure! ;D
Here's the image directly ripped from the pdf (thanks, pdfimages!). Note that full engine nozzles are now visible.

That is very clear.
(I didn't say it wasn't allowed. I just said my machine couldn't do it.)
It looks like the center engine sticks out just a bit past the outer 8.
Interesting.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline friendly3

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liege. BELGIUM.
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 8555
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #745 on: 09/21/2012 11:17 pm »
Just for childish people (like me) who can not wait.
Not really accurate but it gives you an idea.




Offline Joffan

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #746 on: 09/21/2012 11:34 pm »
Document disassembly disallowed? Don't be too sure! ;D
Here's the image directly ripped from the pdf (thanks, pdfimages!). Note that full engine nozzles are now visible.

That is very clear.
(I didn't say it wasn't allowed. I just said my machine couldn't do it.)
It looks like the center engine sticks out just a bit past the outer 8.
Interesting.

I refer you back a few months to about p12 of the thread... http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28882.msg898403#msg898403
Getting through max-Q for humanity becoming fully spacefaring

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #747 on: 09/22/2012 12:39 am »


Nice photoshop.
I will miss tic-tac-toe of F9 1.0...
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #748 on: 09/22/2012 01:12 am »
Interesting photoshop effort... Seen that way it *really* resembles the Saturn 1.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #749 on: 09/22/2012 07:35 am »
That configuration would have an impact on Falcon Heavy. Would the boosters need a little more distance from the center stage? Otherwise the engines would be very close together. Unlike the old configuration.


Offline cambrianera

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 261
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #750 on: 09/22/2012 10:25 am »
That configuration would have an impact on Falcon Heavy. Would the boosters need a little more distance from the center stage? Otherwise the engines would be very close together. Unlike the old configuration.


Don't think so,
Engine bells should be inside the 12' circumference of the tank, see modemeagle drawing:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28882.msg954497#msg954497
Obviously we don't know the "old" distance neither the "new" distance, so this is speculative; my opinion is this is not a factor for design change.

Edit: corrected feet (was inches)
« Last Edit: 09/22/2012 12:22 pm by cambrianera »
Oh to be young again. . .

Offline modemeagle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Grand Blanc, MI
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #751 on: 09/22/2012 11:40 am »
Quick drawing.

Corrected spacing!
« Last Edit: 09/22/2012 05:18 pm by modemeagle »

Offline Joffan

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #752 on: 09/22/2012 03:20 pm »
Quick drawing.
Thanks modemeagle, nice illustration, but to my eye you have moved the cores closer together also.
Getting through max-Q for humanity becoming fully spacefaring

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #753 on: 09/22/2012 03:30 pm »
Quick drawing.
Thanks modemeagle, nice illustration, but to my eye you have moved the cores closer together also.

Thanks too. Yes the two cores are closer together in the new configuration drawing.

Offline modemeagle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Grand Blanc, MI
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #754 on: 09/22/2012 05:14 pm »
Quick drawing.
Thanks modemeagle, nice illustration, but to my eye you have moved the cores closer together also.
Thank you Joffan for catching that.  I did not notice it but they were 6 inches closer then they were supposed to be.  I corrected the original drawing.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3540
  • Likes Given: 758
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #755 on: 09/22/2012 05:26 pm »
What I'm finding unlikely in all these drawings is that the outer edge of the engines corresponds to the vehicle outline. This was not the case with F9 1.0, the engines were better-protected from the airstream.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the entire engine section become slightly wider for this configuration (think of it as one big engine fairing).

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #756 on: 09/22/2012 05:28 pm »
Thank you Joffan for catching that.  I did not notice it but they were 6 inches closer then they were supposed to be.  I corrected the original drawing.

Thanks again. It looks like a comfortable distance, if that is the distance of the actual Falcon cores.

Offline modemeagle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Grand Blanc, MI
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #757 on: 09/22/2012 05:50 pm »
Thank you Joffan for catching that.  I did not notice it but they were 6 inches closer then they were supposed to be.  I corrected the original drawing.

Thanks again. It looks like a comfortable distance, if that is the distance of the actual Falcon cores.
FH specs list width as 38', which is 1' spacing between boosters and core. 

The engine spacing is a complete guess on the V1.1 as no drawings or pictures are released where spacing can be better determined.  The only drawing we have is rotated and is not clear enough even for a guess.

Offline MP99

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #758 on: 09/25/2012 10:56 am »
The Space Show, Friday, 9-21-12:-

23:00 F9 v1.1: flight hardware in Texas right now undergoing test. Will fly from vandenburg Q1 2013. Cape in Q2 with two commercial missions, "at that point all flights will be the new version". [This is presumably before Spx-3.]

See also http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29964.msg957611#msg957611.

cheers, Martin

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • Waikiki
  • Liked: 60418
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #759 on: 09/27/2012 02:03 pm »
 I thought the whole purpose of the change was to move the thrust under the sidewalls, but the outer four engines are moving further off the sidewalls in that drawing.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Tags:
 

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