Author Topic: SCRUB: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 19  (Read 175984 times)

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Liked: 1193
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) December 16
« Reply #40 on: 11/15/2006 07:26 pm »
Soyuz launcher has always had a thrust termination by shutting off a valve so that mustn't be so bad.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) December 16
« Reply #41 on: 11/15/2006 08:38 pm »
Instead of many pieces fluttering down over a large area, thrust termination limits the debris zone footprint at the expense of heavier damage potential within that zone.  I suspect that any launch failure that occurs just a few moments after liftoff is going to make a nasty mess, regardless of the range safety method.  Delta 241 is a good example of how much ground damage can occur even if an explosive range safety termination system is used.  

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) December 16
« Reply #42 on: 11/15/2006 08:42 pm »
Quote
JesseD - 14/11/2006  6:05 AM
... the ground-based vids only show the takeoff, not the crash.  

India wasn't afraid to show videos of its GSLV crash.  Russia allowed images of its Dnepr crash crater, even though Dnepr is an operational ICBM!  Come on SpaceX.  What are you hiding?  Show the video!!

 - Ed Kyle

Offline BarryKirk

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • York, PA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) December 16
« Reply #43 on: 11/15/2006 09:27 pm »
A big advantage of explosive termination is that most of the weight which is unburned fuel is spread out before it reaches the ground.

The LOX which is most of the weight might not reach the ground since it tends to evaporate.  The fuel in the case of RP-1 is a liquid.  If it doesn't ignite, it just mists the area.  If it does ignite in midair, some of it is combusted before reaching the ground reducing what does reach the ground.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) December 16
« Reply #44 on: 11/15/2006 09:49 pm »
Quote
hektor - 15/11/2006  12:09 PM
Soyuz launcher has always had a thrust termination by shutting off a valve so that mustn't be so bad.
That doesn't follow. It just means they are willing to accept the risk. Russia, and even more so China, have paid the price for this choice. An launcher falling mostly intact and full of fuel has potential to do far more damage than one which has been broken up at altitude. See Intelsat 708 or the recent Dnepr failure for examples.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) December 16
« Reply #45 on: 11/15/2006 10:45 pm »
HobbySpace.com is quoting Elon Musk on a mid to late january launch for the next falcon.

http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=2787
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online Chris Bergin

RE: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #46 on: 11/15/2006 11:28 pm »
Thanks. Good work from Mr Topspacer. Changing the NET on this thread as a result.
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 zappafrank

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #47 on: 11/18/2006 05:30 am »
Well, that is what I was wondering.  Sure ground pictures and the bits of onboard are good.  But, I want to see the video of this thing in its entirety.

If it was sucessful, we would have seen the whole thing.  I'm a bit chagrined that after all these months, SpaceX won't come clean to the public with the full video.

I was a big SpaceX supporter, and still want them to do well, but, I've lost a great deal of enthusiasm in them.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #48 on: 11/18/2006 02:24 pm »
I assume the slip is due to the engine update or was that put on hold for the update of the monitoring systems upgrade.. and how much impact has COTS had on the program in terms of resource allocation?

Would love to know how firm this new date is?

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #49 on: 11/18/2006 10:09 pm »
I think Elon has to spend lots of time courting commercial investors, that's one of the big things in COTS.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) December 16
« Reply #50 on: 11/19/2006 04:50 am »
Quote
hop - 15/11/2006  4:32 PM

Quote
hektor - 15/11/2006  12:09 PM
Soyuz launcher has always had a thrust termination by shutting off a valve so that mustn't be so bad.
That doesn't follow. It just means they are willing to accept the risk. Russia, and even more so China, have paid the price for this choice. An launcher falling mostly intact and full of fuel has potential to do far more damage than one which has been broken up at altitude. See Intelsat 708 or the recent Dnepr failure for examples.

This image posted by Anik is pretty telling.  It shows the big hole in the forest left where the Soyuz-U Foton M-1 launcher crashed near Plesetsk pad 43/3 in 2002.  It hit the ground with a nearly full propellant load, creating a huge explosion complete with mushroom cloud, not far from a large building or hanger.  

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment-big.asp?action=view&attachmentid=14664

 - Ed Kyle

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Liked: 1193
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #51 on: 11/19/2006 07:53 am »
France/ESA seem to accept the risk as well. The Soyuz launched from French Guiana will have the same system.

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #52 on: 11/19/2006 03:06 pm »
Keep in mind that there are a number of factors to consider when a launch range approves a flight termination system.  Hypergolic propellants (like those used on Dnepr) will make a much bigger fireball than LOX/kerosene.  US launch ranges want toxic propellants to be mixed and burned before reaching the ground.  LOX/RP is less hazardous from that aspect, thus the potential to use thrust termination instead of destruct.  Of course, trajectory overflight is also a consideration.  If the trajectory is over water, a thrust termination is often acceptable for non-hazardous propellants.  I'm working a program right now where the propellants are non-toxic and the range's primary concern is to show that the tanks will rupture if they hit the water so that the propellants will dispurse and the tanks will sink rather than becoming a hazard to shipping.

I suspect, however, that the ultimate consideration for flight termination method approval in the US is probably the per-capita lawyer population near the launch site...

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #53 on: 11/19/2006 11:12 pm »
Quote
zappafrank - 17/11/2006  11:13 PM
Sure ground pictures and the bits of onboard are good.  But, I want to see the video of this thing in its entirety.
Don't hold your breath.  SpaceX has made a firm decision not to show the entire video, even when they are doing the showing and it could not be copied and distributed.  No explanation is given, and they hear the groans from disappointed audiences.  

With NASA as a potential customer of enormous volume, keepping the public informed seems to have lost its importance.  

Quote
Avron - 18/11/2006  8:07 AM
I assume the slip is due to the engine update or was that put on hold for the update of the monitoring systems upgrade.. and how much impact has COTS had on the program in terms of resource allocation?
The Falcon 1 is not slated to get the upgraded (regen) Merlin 1C for a long time (if ever IMO.)  The second Falcon 1 is slated to use another Merlin 1A.  The update of the monitoring system is probably a lot of the delay, but there must be more than that.  COTS is the big deal.  They are just realizing how enormous a task it is that they have undertaken.

Quote
meiza - 18/11/2006  3:52 PM
I think Elon has to spend lots of time courting commercial investors, that's one of the big things in COTS.
Without evidence that he is courting "commercial" investors, I would find that unlikely.  "Other" investors perhaps.  Even if he is, it is not his biggest challenge or time consumer.

Quote
Avron - 18/11/2006  8:07 AM
Would love to know how firm this new date is?
That's clear: Not.  It is slipping almost month for month and Musk said it would take as long as it takes.

Quote
zappafrank - 17/11/2006  11:13 PM
I was a big SpaceX supporter, and still want them to do well, but, I've lost a great deal of enthusiasm in them.
Me too.  They  have smart people, a dedicated leader, great potential, and real, functional hardware.  They took on some very large challenges.  
However, they have continued to take on ever larger challenges instead of completing one at a time.
 
The Air Force did a study a few years back where they rediscovered the obvious (at lest in hindsight):  Progress is made when the state of the art is pushed back in a very limited number of directions in a given effort.  The study pointed this out as a difference between the DC-X, which was a success breaking ground on a few fronts, and the X-33, which set out to advance the state-of-the-art in every direction at once.  

Musk's genius was limiting his initial project to the absolute minimum.  One engine per stage. One turbopump per launch.  One set of avionics.  One diameter for all stages. One fuel and oxidezer combination.  A very simple launch pad.   And a statement that they would reuse whatever was reuseable after they hauled it out of the ocean.  Very little of this is applicable to Falcon-9, Dragon, and COTS.

We have all seen enough private rocket programs  (Beal, Amroc, Kistler and Pioneer Rocketplane before they becaome Rocketplane-Kistler, Rotary, Otrag,  etc.)   We would like to see a success.  Some of us could even become customers, even if they only cut the cost of launch by a "mere" factor of two.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #54 on: 11/20/2006 04:16 am »
Quote
Comga - 19/11/2006  5:55 PM

Quote
zappafrank - 17/11/2006  11:13 PM
Sure ground pictures and the bits of onboard are good.  But, I want to see the video of this thing in its entirety.
Don't hold your breath.  SpaceX has made a firm decision not to show the entire video, even when they are doing the showing and it could not be copied and distributed.  No explanation is given, and they hear the groans from disappointed audiences.  

I wonder if a FOIA could spring this video.  The launch was purchased by the U.S. Government.  There must have been U.S. Government tracking cameras in use.

Every other video made on the planet ends up on the Internet, why not this one?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #55 on: 11/20/2006 04:49 am »
Quote
edkyle99 - 19/11/2006  8:59 PM

Quote
Comga - 19/11/2006  5:55 PM

Quote
zappafrank - 17/11/2006  11:13 PM
Sure ground pictures and the bits of onboard are good.  But, I want to see the video of this thing in its entirety.
Don't hold your breath.  SpaceX has made a firm decision not to show the entire video, even when they are doing the showing and it could not be copied and distributed.  No explanation is given, and they hear the groans from disappointed audiences.  

I wonder if a FOIA could spring this video.  The launch was purchased by the U.S. Government.  There must have been U.S. Government tracking cameras in use.

Every other video made on the planet ends up on the Internet, why not this one?

Filing FOIA requests is free, no?  I know that Ross filed some for the ESAS appendices.  Of course, I think that FOIA only works for documents that the government has in its possession, and judging from watching launches from the Cape, they usually only switch to long-range tracking cameras several seconds after liftoff, presumably after the rocket has risen high enough to clear the horizon.

As to why not this video, SpaceX is small and apparently a sufficiently low number of disgruntled employees that no one has both the inclination and the ability to leak the video.  Simple enough.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #56 on: 11/20/2006 11:44 am »
Quote
edkyle99 - 19/11/2006  11:59 PM

Quote
Comga - 19/11/2006  5:55 PM

Quote
zappafrank - 17/11/2006  11:13 PM
Sure ground pictures and the bits of onboard are good.  But, I want to see the video of this thing in its entirety.
Don't hold your breath.  SpaceX has made a firm decision not to show the entire video, even when they are doing the showing and it could not be copied and distributed.  No explanation is given, and they hear the groans from disappointed audiences.  

I wonder if a FOIA could spring this video.  The launch was purchased by the U.S. Government.  There must have been U.S. Government tracking cameras in use.

Every other video made on the planet ends up on the Internet, why not this one?

 - Ed Kyle

The "launch' wasn't purchase.  Different contracting mechanism.  No gov't optical tracking resounces in that area

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #57 on: 11/20/2006 02:10 pm »
Quote
yinzer - 20/11/2006  12:32 AM

Quote
edkyle99 - 19/11/2006  8:59 PM

I wonder if a FOIA could spring this video.  The launch was purchased by the U.S. Government.  There must have been U.S. Government tracking cameras in use.

Every other video made on the planet ends up on the Internet, why not this one?

Filing FOIA requests is free, no?  I

No.  Well, filing is free, but receiving the info probably is not.  Depending on what is asked for, there may be admin or reproduction costs involved.  Our company FOIAed some contracts a while back and it ended up costing a couple of hundred dollars for "research" and repro costs.  Also keep in mind that the company in question is consulted during a FOIA request and is allowed to redact sensitive and proprietary information.  Given that SpaceX funded the development of the vehicle, I suspect they have some control over what is released in a FOIA.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #58 on: 11/21/2006 01:06 am »
Quote
Jim - 20/11/2006  6:27 AM

Quote
edkyle99 - 19/11/2006  11:59 PM

Quote
Comga - 19/11/2006  5:55 PM

Quote
zappafrank - 17/11/2006  11:13 PM
Sure ground pictures and the bits of onboard are good.  But, I want to see the video of this thing in its entirety.
Don't hold your breath.  SpaceX has made a firm decision not to show the entire video, even when they are doing the showing and it could not be copied and distributed.  No explanation is given, and they hear the groans from disappointed audiences.  

I wonder if a FOIA could spring this video.  The launch was purchased by the U.S. Government.  There must have been U.S. Government tracking cameras in use.

Every other video made on the planet ends up on the Internet, why not this one?

 - Ed Kyle

The "launch' wasn't purchase.  Different contracting mechanism.  No gov't optical tracking resounces in that area

Says below that there are three tracking camera towers on nearby Meck Island, and Radot and Super Radot long range optical tracking systems within 15-30 miles of Omelek.   At the Cape, the long range trackers follow launches right from the pad, although they don't start seeing clearly for a few seconds.

http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/RangeInst.html

This is little doubt in my mind that some or all of these assets would have been used to track what was, after all, only the second-ever orbital space launch attempted from Kwajalein.  Good practice for anti-missile test launch tracking.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET January
« Reply #59 on: 11/21/2006 06:09 am »
Comga,
Quote
The Air Force did a study a few years back where they rediscovered the obvious (at lest in hindsight):  Progress is made when the state of the art is pushed back in a very limited number of directions in a given effort.  The study pointed this out as a difference between the DC-X, which was a success breaking ground on a few fronts, and the X-33, which set out to advance the state-of-the-art in every direction at once.

In hindsight, Elon might have been more succesful had he tried to do some sort of suborbital risk-reduction excercise first.  The danger I've seen with many well-financed commercial space projects is this feeling that if they don't get a full-blown EELV sized orbital vehicle ASAP, that they're not going to be profitable soon enough to make their business case close.  So, they end up taking on a big first project instead of something simpler, and the learning curve bites them in the backside.  

I'm just theorizing here, but it may very well be that there is such a thing as "too much money" when it comes to starting an alt.space company--that you have so much money that you think you can and must take on a bigger first project then is absolutely realistic.  If there's any truth to that theory, I wonder what the sweet spot is?  Probably just enough money to do a reasonable first revenue generating project to build design and operational experience, while not enough to get hubris and reach too far.

Our Bus Dev guy was speaking with Rick Citron (one of the guys who helped raise money for Kistler), and he said that he was pretty sure that had Kistler started out with a suborbital project, they probably could've raised the money they needed with their original staff, and would probably be a profitable concern today.  Possibly even doing orbital operations by now.

There's a lot to be said for baby steps.  

As for SpaceX, I really hope they can pull this off succesfully.  They have a lot of very talented people on board, but they may very well grow themselves to death.  Alas, it seems to be the fate of many otherwise very promising startups.  Of course, compared to not knowing for sure if your company is going to keep enough cash flow to stay afloat long enough to make it to your next technical milestone isn't particularly fun either.  So you pick you poison I guess.

~Jonathan Goff
  Masten Space Systems

Tags:
 

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